1 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 



Chap SXJ-ZiC:. 

Sheif ,Kv3_-,._. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



Foyc/'SS^^ 






THE 



Vatican Decrees 



IN THEIR BEARING ON 



CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 



BY 



HENRY EDWARD, vXhsiCk(vvvA*-W'l^ 

ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER.' 



New York : 
THE CATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 

9 WARREN STREET. 
1875. 



<\° 






CONTENTS. 



•^♦^i — — . 

fAXiK 

Introduction, , 7 

CHAPTER. 

L Meaning and Effect of the ; Vatican 

Decrees, ........ 17 

II, The Relations of the Spiritual and Civil 

Powers, 46 

III. Aggressions of the Civil Power, ... 94 

IV. True and False Progress, . . . 123 
V. The Motive of the Definition, ... 148 

Conclusion, 166 

Appendices, ..••.•••« 171 



PREFACE. 



A TASK both difficult and unlocked for has sud- 
denly fallen to my lot ; that is, to gain a fair hearing 
on subjects about which the opinions, and still more 
the feelings, of so many men are not only adverse, 
but even hostile. I must, therefore, ask for patience 
from those who may read these pages. 

The topics here treated have not been chosen by 
me. They have been raised by Mr. Gladstone, 
and perhaps, in all the range of Religion and Poli- 
tics, none can be found more delicate, more beset 
with misconceptions, or more prejudged by old tra- 
ditionary beliefs and antipathies. Some of them, 
too, are of an odious kind ; others revive memories 
we would fain forget. And 3^et, if Mr. Gladstone's 
appeal to me is to be answered, treated the}" must 
be. My reply to the argument of the Expostulation 
on the Vatican Council will be found in the first, 
second, and fifth chapters; but as Mr. Gladstone 
has brought into his impeachment the present con- 
tlict in Germany, and has rt^vicwcd his own contluct 



4 Preface. 

in respect to the Revolution in Italy, I have felt my- 
self obliged to follow him. This I have done in the 
third and fourth chapters. Apart from this reason, I 
felt myself bound to do so by the terms of the two 
letters printed at the opening of the following pages. 
I hold myself pledged to justify their contents. 
Moreover, these two topics fall within the outline of 
the subject treated by Mr. Gladstone, which is, 
the relation of the Supreme Spiritual Power of the 
Head of the Christian Church to the Civil Powers 
of all countries. So much for the matter of these 
pages. 

As for the manner, if it be faulty, the fault is 
mine: and 3^et there ought to be no fault imputed 
where there has been no intention to wound or to 
offend. I can say with truth that, to avoid offence, I 
have weighed my words; and if there be one still 
found which ought not to have been written, I wish 
it to be blotted out. The subject-matter is beyond 
my control. I can blot out words, but I cannot blot 
out truths. What I believe to be truth, that I have 
said in the clearest words and calmest that I could 
find to give to it adequate expression. 



THE VATICAN DECREES 



IN THEIR BEARING ON 



CIVIL ALLEGIANCE 



INTRODUCTION. 



Mr. Gladstone, in his Expostulation with the 
Catholics of the British Empire on the Decrees of 
the Vatican Council, writes as follows: — 

• England is entitled to ask and to know in what way 
the obedience required by the Pope and the Council of the 
Vatican is to be reconciled with the integrity of Civil Alle- 
giance.' ^ 

When I read these words, I at once recognized the 
rightof the English people, speaking by its legitimate 
authorities, to know from me what I believe and 
what I teach ; but in recognising this right I am 
compelled to decline to answer before any other tri- 
bunal, or to any other interrogator. If, therefore, 
I take the occasion of any such interrogation, I do 
not address myself to. those who make it, but to the 
justice and to the good sense of the Christian people 
of this country. 

* The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance. By 
the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. P. 43. 

7 



8 Introduction, 

Mr. Gladstone followed up this demand upon his 
Catholic fellow-countrymen by an elaborate argu- 
ment to prove that it is impossible for Catholics, 
since the Vatican Council, to be loyal except at the 
cost of their fidelity to the Council, or faithful to the 
Council except at the cost of their loyalty to their 
country. I therefore considered it to be my duty to 
lose no time in making the subjoined declaration in 
all our principal journals. 

* Sir, — The gravity of the subject on which I address you, 
affecting, as it must, every Catholic in the British Empire, 
will, I hope, obtain from your courtesy the publication of 
this letter. 

'This morning I received a copy of a pamphlet, entitled 
*' The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance." 
I find in it a direct appeal to myself, both for the office I 
hold and for the writings I have published. I gladly ac- 
knowledge the duty that lies upon me for both those reasons. 
I am bound by the office I bear not to suffer a day to pass 
without repelling from the Catholics of this country the 
lightest imputation upon their loyalty ; and, for my teach- 
ing, I am ready to show that the principles I have ever 
taught are beyond impeachment upon that score. 

*It is true, indeed, that in page 57 of the pamphlet Mr. 
Gladstone expresses his belief ''that many of his Roman 
Catholic friends and fellow-countrymen are, to say the least 
of it, as good citizens as himself." But as the whole pam- 
phlet is an elaborate argument to prove that the teaching of 
the Vatican Council renders it impossible for them to be so, 
I cannot accept this grateful acknowledgment, which implies 
that they are good citizens because they are at variance with 
the Catholic Church. 

'I should be wanting in duty to the Catholics of this 
country and to myself if I did not give a prompt contradic- 
tion to this statement, and if I did not with equal prompt- 



Introduction. g 

, ness affirm that the loyalty of our civil allegiance is, not in 
spite of the teaching of the Catholic Church, but because 
of it. 

* The sum of the argument in the pamphlet just published 
to the world is this : — That by the Vatican Decrees such a 
change has been made in the relations of Catholics to the 
civil power of States, that it is no longer possible for them 
to render the same undivided civil allegiance as it was pos- 
sible for Catholics to render before the promulgation of 
those Decrees. 

' In answer to this it is for the present sufficient to 
affirm — 

' I. That the Vatican Decrees have in no jot or tittle 
changed either the obligations or the conditions of civil 
allegiance. 

* 2. That the civil allegiance of Catholics is as undivided 
as that of all Christians, and of all men who recognise a 
Divine or natural moral law. 

' 3. That the civil allegiance of no man is unlimited ; and 
therefore the civil allegiance of all men who believe in God, 
or are governed by conscience, is in that sense divided. 

*4. In this sense, and in no other, can it be said with 
truth that the civil allegiance of Catholics is divided. The 
civil allegiance of every Christian man in England is limited 
by conscience and the law of God ; and the civil allegiance 
of Catholics is limited neither less nor more. 

* 5. The public peace of the British Empire has been 
consolidated in the last half century by the elimination of 
religious conflicts and inequalities from our laws. The Em- 
pire of Germany might have been equally peaceful aiul 
stable if its statesmen had not been tempted in an evil hour 
to rake up the old fires of religious disunion. The hand ( f 
one man, more than any other, threw this torch of discoid 
into the German Empire. The history of Germany will re- 
cord the name of Dr. Ignatius von Dollingcr as the author 
of this national evil. I lament, not only to read the name, 
bi}t to trace the arguments of Dr. von Pollingcr in the pamr 



lo Introduction, 

phlet before me. May God preserve these kingdoms from 
tlie public and private calamities which are visibly impend- 
ing over Germany. The author of the pamphlet, in his first 
line, assures us that his '* purpose is not polemical but 
pacific." I am sorry that so good an intention should have 
so widely erred in the selection of the means. 

' But my purpose is neither to criticise nor to controvert. 
My desire and my duty as an Englishman, as a Catholic, and 
as a pastor, is to claim for my flock and for myself a civil 
allegiance as pure, as true, and as loyal as is rendered by the 
distinguished author of the pamphlet, or by any subject of 
the British Empire. 

&c. &c. 

* I^crj£7nher 7, 1S74.' 

Subsequently, in reply to questions proposed to 

me, I further wrote as follows : — 

To the Editor of The Xezu York Herald, 
' Dear Sir, — In answer to your question as to my state- 
ment about the Vatican Council, I reply as follows: 

' I asserted that the Vatican Decrees have not changed 
by a jot or a tittle the obligations or conditions of the civil 
obedience of Catholics towards the Civil Powers. The 
whole of Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet hangs on the contrarv^ 
assertion ; and falls with it* In proof of my assertion I 
add ^.— 

* I, That the Infallibility of the Pope was a doctrine of 
Divine Faith before the Vatican Council was held. In the 
second and third parts of a book called " Petri Privilegium 
(Longmans, 1871), I have given more than sufficient e\idence 
of this assertion. 

.* 2. That the Vatican Council simply declared an old 
truthp, and made no new dogma. 

' 3. That the position of Catholics therefore in respect to 
civil allegiance, since the Vatican Council, is precisely what 
it was before it. 



Introdtiction. " 1 1 

*4. That the Civil Powers of the Christian world have 
hitherto stood in peaceful relation with an Infallible Church, 
and that relation has been often recognised and declared by 
the Church in its Councils. The Vatican Council had, 
therefore, no new matter to treat in this point. 

'5. That the Vatican Council has made no decree what- 
ever on the subject of the Civil Powers, nor on ciyil alle- 
giance. 

* This snbject was not so much as proposed. The civil 
obedience of Catholics rests upon the natural law, and the 
revealed la\V of God. Society is founded in nature, and sub- 
jects are bound in -all things lawful to obey their rulers. 
Society, when Christian, has higher sanctions, and -subjects 
are bound to obey ruleis for conscience sake, and because 
the Powers that be are ordained of God. Of all these things 
the Vatican Decrees can have changed nothing because they 
have touched nothing. Mr. Gladstone's whole argument 
hangs upon an erroneous assertion, into which I can only 
suppose he has been misled by his misplaced trust in Dr. 
Dollinger and some of ^his friends. 

'On public and private grounds I deeply lament this act 
of imprudence, and but for my beliel in Mr. Gladstone's sin- 
cerity I should say this act ot irjjustice. I lament it, as an 
act out of all harmony and propo'tion to a great statesman's 
life, and as the first event that has overcast a friendship of 
forty-five years. His whole public life has hitherto consoli- 
dated the Christian and civil peace of these kingdoms. ThisI 
act, unless the good providence of God and the good sense! 
of Englishmen avert it, may wreck more than the work of] 
Mr. Gladstone's public career, and at the end of a long life 
may tarnish a great name 

&c. &C. 
'Westminster, Nov. 10, 1874.' 



Having thus directly contradicted the main error 
of Mr. Gladstone's argument, I ^liought it my duty 



1 2 Introditctian. 

to wait. I was certain that two things would follow : 
the one, that far better answers than any that I could 
make 'would be promptly made ; the other, that cer- 
tain nominal Catholics, who upon other occasions 
have done the same, would write letters to the news- 
papers. 

Both events have come to pass. 

The Bishops of Birmingham, Clifton, and Salford 
have abundantly pointed out the mistakes into which 
Mr. Gladstone has fallen on the subject of the Vati- 
can Council ; and have fully vindicated the loyalty 
of Catholics. 

The handful of nominal Catholics have done their 
work ; and those who hoped to find or to make a 
division among Catholics have been disappointed. It 
is now seen that those who reject the Vatican Coun- 
cil may be told on Qur fingers, aud the Catholic 
Church has openly passed sentence on them. 

Having made these declarations, I might have re- 
mained silent ; but as in my first letter I implied tha4: 
I was prepared to justify what I had asserted, I gave 
notice that I would do so. Having passed my word, 
I will keep it; and in keeping it 1 will endeavour to 
deserve again the acknowledgment Mr. Gladstone 
has already made. He says that, whatever comes, so 
far as I am concerned, it will not be * without due 
notice/ I will be equally outspoken now ; not be- 
cause he has challenged it, but because, so far as I 
know, I have always tried to speak out. In all 
these years of strife I have never consciously kept 
back, or explained away, any doctrine of the Catho* 
lie Church. I will not begin to do so now, when my 



^Introduction. 1 3 

time is nearly run. I am afraid that in these pages 
I shall seem to obtrude myself too often, and too 
much. If any think so, I would ask them to remem- 
ber that Mr. Gladstone has laid me under this ne- 
cessity in these three ways : — 

1. He has made me the representative of the Ca- 
tholic doctrine since 1870, as Bishop Doyle, 
he says, w^as in better days. 

2. He has quoted my writings four times in cen- 
sure. 

3. He has appealed to me as * Head of the Papal 
Church in England ; ' I may also add as ' The 
Oracle.' My words, however, shall not be 
ambiguous. 

The two letters given above contain four asser- 
tions. 

First, that the Decrees of the Vatican Council have 
changed nothing in respect to the civil obedience of 
Catholics. 

Secondly, that their civil obedience is neither more 
nor less divided than that of other men. 

Thirdly, that the relations of the Spiritual and 
Civil Powers have been fixed from time immemorial, 
and are therefore after the Vatican Council what 
they were before. 

Fourthly, that the contest now waging abroad be- 
gan in a malevolent and mischievous intrigue to in- 
stigate the Civil Powers to oppress and persecute 
the Catholic Church. 



14 Introduction. 

The two first propositions shall be treated in the 
first chapter, the third in the second chapter, and 
the last in the third. 

I will therefore endeavour to prove the following 
propositions, which cover all the assertions I have 
made : — 

1. That the Vatican Decrees have in no jot or 
tittle changed either the obligations or the 
conditions of Civil Allegiance. 

2. That the relations of the Catholic Church to 
the Civil Powers of the world have been im- 
mutably fixed from the beginning, inasmuch as 
they arise out of the Divine Constitution of 
the Church, and out of the Civil Society of 
the natural order. 

3. That any collisions now existing have been 
brought on by changes, not on the part of the 
Catholic Church, much less of the Vatican 
Council, but on the part of the Civil Powers, 
and that by reason of a systematic conspiracy 
against the Holy See. 

4. That by these changes and collisions the Civil 
Powers of Europe are destroying their own 
stability. 

5. That the motive of the Vatican Council in de- 
fining the Infallibility of the Roman PontifT 
was not any temporal policy, nor was it for 
any temporal end ; but that it defined that 



Introdtiction. 1 5 

truth in the face of all temporal dangers, in or- 
der to guard the Divine deposit of Christian- 
ity, and to vindicate the divine certainty of 
faith. 



CHAPTER I. 

MEANING AND EFFECT OF THE VATICAN DECREES. 

L In setting out to prove my first proposition — 
namely, * that the Vatican Decrees have in no jot or 
tittle changed either the obligations or the conditions 
of Civil Allegiance ' — I find myself undertaking to 
prove a negative. The onus of proving that the Vati- 
can Decrees have made a change in our civil allegiance 
rests upon those who affirm it. Till they offer proof 
we might remain silent. It would be enough for us to 
answer that the Vatican Council in its Dogmatic Con- 
stitution on the Church has simply affirmed the re- 
vealed doctrine of the Spiritual Primacy, and of the 
Infallibility of the Visible Head of the Christian 
Church ; that the relations of this Primacy to the Civil 
Powers are in no way treated ; and that the civil obedi- 
ence of subjects is left precisely as and where it was 
before the Vatican Council was convened. 

(i) However, I will first examine what proofs have 
been offered to show that the Vatican Council has 
made the alleged change ; and I will then give positive 
evidence to show what the Vatican Council has done. 
From these things it will be seen that it has neither 
changed, nor added to, nor taken away anything from 
the doctrine and discipline of the Church, but has only 
defined what has been believed and practised from the 



17 



1 8 Meaning and Effect of 

The arguments to prove a change are two. 

First. Mr. Gladstone has argued from the third 
chapter of the Constitution on the Roman Pontiff, 
that his powers have received a great extension. Mr. 
Gladstone, so far as I am aware, is the first and only- 
person who has ever ventured on this statement. 

His argument is as follows : 

He dwells with no little amplification upon the * in- 
troduction of the remarkable phrase,' ^ad disciplinam 
et regimen Ecclesiae,' into the third chapter ; that is, 

* non solum in rebus quae ad fidem et mores pertinent, 
sed etiam in iis quae ad disciplinam et regimen Eccle- 
siae per totum orbem diffusse pertinent.' He says, 

* Absolute obedience, it is boldly declared, is due to 
the Pope, at the peril of salvation, not only in faith 
and in morals, but in all things which concern the dis- 
cipline and government of the Church' (p. 41). Sub- 
mission in faith and morals is * abject ' enough, but * in 
discipline and government ' too is Intolerable. 'Why 
did the astute contrivers of this tangled scheme, &c. 
. . . (p. 39V ' The work is now truly complete ' 
(p. 40). This he calls ' the new version of the princi- 
ples of the Papal Church.' When I read this, I asked, 

* Is It possible that Mr. Gladstone should think this 
to be anything new ? What does he conceive the Pri- 
macy of Rome to mean ? With what eyes has he read 
history ? Can he have read the tradition of the Catho- 
lic Church ? As one of * the astute contrivers,' I will 
answer that these words were introduced because the 
Pontiffs and Councils of the Church have always so 
used them. They may be * remarkable ' and ' new ' 
to Mr. Gladstone, but they are' old as the Catholic 



the Vatican Decrees. lo 

Church. I give the first proofs which come to 
hand. 

Nicholas I., in the year 863, in a Council at Rome, 
enacted : * Si quis dogmata, mandata, interdicta, sanc- 
tiones vel decreta pro Catholica fide, pro ecclesiastica 
disciphna, pro correctione fidelium, pro emendatione 
sceleratorum, vel interdictione imminentium vel futu- 
rorum malorum, a Sedis Apostolic^e Preside salubriter 
promulgata contempserit : Anathema sit.'^ This was 
an ' iron gripe ' not less ' formidable ' than the third 
chapter of the Vatican Constitution. 

It may be said, perhaps, that this was only a Pontiff 
in his own cause ; or only a Roman Council. 

But this Canon was recognised in the Eighth Gen- 
eral Council held at Constantinople in 869.^ 

Innocent III. may be no authority with Mr. Glad- 
stone ; but he says, what every Pontiff before him and 
after him has said, * Nos qui sumus ad regimen Univer- 
salis Ecclesiae, superna dispositione vocati.'^ 

Again, Sixtus IV., in 1471., writes : ' Ad Universa- 
lis Ecclesiae regimen divina disponente dementia voca- 
tis,' ' &c. 

If this be not enough, we have the Council of Flo- 
rence, in 1442, defining of the Roman Pontiff that 
* Ipsi in Beato Petro pascendi, regendi ac giibernandi 
Universalem Ecclesiam a Domino nostro Jcsu Christo 
plenam potestam traditam esse.' ^ 

' Labbc, Concil, torn. x. p. 238, cd. Vcn. 1730. 

' Ibid. torn. X. p. 633. See Petri. Privilegiuiti, end part, p. Si. 

* Corpus Juris Canon. Decrct. Greg. lib. ii. cap. xiii. Novit. 

* Corpus Juris Canon. Extrav. Connn. lib. i. tit. ix. cap. i. 

* Labbe, Concil. torn, xviii. p. 527, cd. Vcn. 1732. 



20 Meanmg and Effect of 

Finally the Council of Trent says: — ' Unde merito 
Pontifices Maximi pro Suprema potestate sibi in Eccle- 
sia universa tradita,'^ &c. 

I refrain from quoting Canonists and Theologians 
who use this language as to regimen and discipline. 
It needed no astuteness to transcribe the well-known 
traditional language of the Catholic Church. It is as 
universal in our law books as the forms of the Courts 
at Westminster. The Vatican Council has left the au- 
thority of the Pontiff precisely where it found it. The 
whole, therefore, of Mr. Gladstone's argument falls with 
the misapprehension on which it was based. 

What, then, is there new in the Vatican Council? 
What is to be thought of the rhetorical description of 
* Merovingian monarchs and Carlovingian mayors/ but 
that the distinguished author is out of his depth? The 
Pope had at all times the power to rule the whole 
Church not only in faith and morals, but also in all 
things which pertain to discipline and government, and 
that v/hether infallibly or not. 

Such is literally the only attempt made by Mr. 
Gladstone to justify his assertions. But what has this 
to do with Civil Allegiance ? There is not a syllable 
on the subject, there is not a proposition w^hich can be 
twisted or tortured into such a meaning. The govern- 
ment ot the Church, as here spoken of, is purely and 
strictly the Spiritual government of souls, both pastors 
and people, as it was exercised in the first three hun- 
dred years before any Christian State existed. 

But next, it the Vatican Council has not spoken 
of the Civil Powers, nevertheless it has defined that the 

^ Sess. xiv. cap. vii. 



the Vatican Decrees. 21 

Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible : this definition, 
by retrospective action, makes all Pontifical acts infal- 
lible, the Bull Unain Sanctam included ; and, by pro- 
spective action, will make all similar acts in future 
binding upon the conscience. 

Certainly this is true. But what is there new in this ? 
The Vatican Council did not make the Pope infallible. 
Was he not infallible before the Council ? He is, there- 
fore, not more infallible after it than before. If a 
handful of writers, here and there, denied his infalli- 
bility, the whole Church affirmed it. Proof of this shall 
be given in its place. For the present, I affirm that 
all acts ex cathedra^ such as the Bull Unam Sane- 
tamy the Bull Unigenitiis, the Bull Auctorem Fidei^ and 
the like, were held to be infallible as fully before the 
Vatican Council as now. 

To this it will be said, * Be it so ; but nobody was 
bound under Anathema to believe them.* I answer 
that it is not the Anathema that generates faith. The 
infallibility of the Head of the Church was a doctrine 
of Divine Faith before it was defined in 1870, and to 
deny it was held by grave authorities to be at least 
proximate to heresy, if not actually heretical.^ The 
Vatican Council has put this beyond question ; but it 
was never lawful to Catholics to deny the infallibility 
of a Pontifical act ex cathedra. It is from simple ^vant 
of knowledge that men suppose every doctrine not 
defined to be an open question. The doctrine 
of the Infallibility of the Church has never been 
defined to this day. Will any man pretend tliat 
this is an open question among Catholics ? The 
^ ret7l Pjivilcgittvt, part i. pp. 61-66, and notes. 



2 2 Meaning and Effect of 

infallibility of the Pope was likewise never defined, 
but it was never an open question. Even the Jan- 
senists did not venture to deny it, and the eva- 
sion of some of them, who gave * obsequious silence ' 
instead of internal assent to Pontifical acts, was con- 
demned by Clement XI. The definition of the Vatican 
Council has made no change whatsoever except in the 
case of those who denied or doubted of this doctrine. 
No difference, therefore, whatsoever has been made in 
the state of those who believed it. If the integrity of 
their civil allegiance was unimpeded before 1870, it is 
unimpeded now. But Mr. Gladstone admits that it 
w^as unimpeded before. His contention is that it is im- 
peded now. But this is self-contradictory, for they 
believed the same doctrine of infalHbility both then 
and now. If Mr. Gladstone means that the Vatican 
Council has made a difference for the few who denied 
the doctrine, and for the authors of Janus and Quirinus^ 
and the professors of * obsequious silence,' his conten- 
tion is most true. But then he must change his whole 
position. The title of his pamphlet must be amended 
and stand, ^ The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on 
the Civil Allegiance of those who before 1870 denied 
the Infallibility of the Pope.' But this would ruin his 
case ; for he would have admitted the loyalty of Catho- 
lics who always believed it before the definition was 
made. 

We are next told that there are some twelve theo- 
ries of what is an act ex cathedra. We have been also 
told that there are twenty. But how is it that Mr. 
Gladstone did not see that by this the whole force of 
his argument is shaken? If the definition has left it 



the Vaticmi Decrees. 23 

so uncertain what acts are, and what acts are not, ex 
cathedra^ who shall hold himself bound to obedience ? 
Are the eighty condemnations indicated in the Sylla- 
bus ^;ir ^<^///^^<3^r^ / By this showing it is 12 to I that 
they may not be. It is an axiom in morals * Lex ditbia 
lion obligat' But if it be doubtful whether the Sylla- 
bus is ex cathedrUy I am not bound to receive it with 
interior assent. Again, Mr. Gladstone thinks to aggra- 
vate the case by adding that the Pope is to be the ulti- 
mate judge of what acts are ex cathedra. And who 
else should be ? Ejus est interpretari ctijiis est condcre 
is a principle of all law. Mr. Gladstone has been act- 
ing upon it all his life. But, perhaps it may be said, 
why did not the Council put beyond doubt what acts 
are ex cathedra ? Well, the Council has done so, as I 
hope to show ; and has done it with as great precision 
as the subject matter will admit. It has given five 
tests, or conditions, by which an act ex cathedra may 
be distinguished. 

But it may be said that doubts may still exist, and 
that doubts may still be raised as to this or that Ponti- 
fical act whether it be ex cathedra or not. Surely com- 
mon sense would say, consult the authority which 
made the law ; the legislator is always at hand, always 
' ready to explain his own meaning, and to define the 
limits of his intention. If there be anything unreason- 
able in this, all jurisprudence, including the British 
Constitution, labours under the same uncertainty, or 
rather the same inevitable imperfection. 

I am surprised that Mr. Gladstone should have 
quoted the second paragraph of the chapter in the 
Vatican Constitution ; and that he should have passed 



24 Meaning and Effect of 

over the fourth paragraph, in which there are indeed 
the words * potestatis saecularis placito/ This is the 
only recognition of secular powers in the whole Con- 
stitution. In that paragraph two things are affirmed : 
the one that the free exercise of the supreme Spiritual 
power of the Head of the Christian Church may neither 
be intercepted, nor hindered, nor excluded from any 
part of the Church by any human authority ; and, 
secondly, that all such acts of his Spiritual power are 
valid and complete in themselves, and need, for that 
end, no confirmation or placiturn of any other autho- 
rity. This independence is claimed for Christianity by 
every one who believes in a revelation. Here is indeed 
a reference to Civil Powers ; but, lest the Vatican 
Council should be held guilty of such innovations, I 
will add that such was the contention of St. Thomas 
of Canterbury against Henry H. in the case of the 
Constitutions of Clarendon, which were not * cursed,' 
as Mr. Gladstone delicately expresses it, but condemn- 
ed by Alexander HI. in the year 1164. This, then, has 
not changed the Civil Allegiance of Catholics since 
1870. 

But I am not undertaking to prove a negative. I 
hope that I have shown that the evidence offered 
to prove that the Council has made the alleged change 
IS nil, I affirm, then, once more that the Vatican 
Council has not touched the question of Civil Alle- 
giance, that it has not by a jot or a tittle changed the 
relations in which the Church has ever stood to the 
Civil Powers; and that, therefore, the Civil Allegiance 
of Catholics is as full, perfect, and complete since 
the Council as it was before. These are affirma- 



Vie Vatican Decrees. 25 

tions capable of truth, and before I have done I hope 
to prove them. For the present it will be enough to 
give the reason v/hy the Vatican Council did not touch 
the question of the relations of the Church to the 
Civil Powers. The reason is simple. It intended not 
to touch them, until it could treat them fully and as a 
whole. And it has carefully adhered to its intention. 
I will also give the reason why it has been so confi- 
dently asserted that the Council did touch the Civil 
Powers. It is because certain persons, a year before 
the Council met, resolved to say so. They wrote the 
book Janus to prove it ; they published circulars and 
pamphlets before and during the Council to re-assert 
it. They first prophesied that the Council would in- 
terfere with the Civil Powers, and now they write sci- 
entific history to prove that it has done so. I am not 
writing at random ; I carefully collected at the time 
their books, pamphlets, and articles. I read them 
punctually, and bound tliem up into volumes, which 
arc now before me. Mr. Gladstone has reproduced 
their arguments. But for this systematic agitation be- 
fore the Council, no one, I am convinced, would have 
found a shadow of cause for it in its Decrees. Now, 
that I may not seem to write this as prompted by the 
events of the present moment, I Avill repeat what I 
published in the year 1869, before the Council assem- 
bled, and in the year 1870, after the Council was 
suspended. 

Before the Council met I published these words:/— 



^'Thc CEcnmcnical Council and the Infallibility of the Koniau 
Pontiff,' Pcfri Piivile^i^-iuriu part ii. pp. 131-5. (Longmans, 1S71.) 



26 2\ I caning and JbJ/cct of 

* Whilst I was writing these lines a document has appeared 
purporting to be the answers of the Theological Faculty of 
Munich to the questions of the Bavarian Government. 

' The questions and the answers are so evidently concerted, 
if not written by the same hand, and the animus of the document 
so evidently hostile to the Holy See, and so visibly intended to 
create embarrassments for the supreme authority of the Church, 
both in respect to its past acts and also in respect to the 
future action of the (Ecumenical Council, that I cannot pass it 
over. But, in speaking of it, I am compelled, for the first 
time, to break silence on a danger which has for some years 
been growing in its proportions, and, I fear I must add, in its 
attitude of menace. The answers of the University of Munich 
are visibly intended to excite fear and alarm in the Civil 
Powers of Europe, and thereby to obstruct the action of the 
OEcumenical Council if it should judge it to be opportune to 
define the Infallibility of the Pope. The answers are also 
intended to create an impression that the theological 
proofs of the doctrine are inadequate, and its definition beset 
with uncertainty and obscurity. In a word, the whole corre- 
spondence is a transparent effort to obstruct the freedom of the 
OEcumenical Council on the subject of the Infallibility of the 
Pontiff; or, if that doctrine be defined, to instigate the Civil 
Governments to assume a hostile attitude towards the Holy 
See. And this comes in the name of liberty, and from those 
who tell us that the Council will not be free. 

* I shall take the liberty, without further words, of dismissing 
the Bavarian Government from our thoughts. But I must 
declare, with much regret, that this Munich document appears 
to me to be seditious! 

* Facts like these give a certain warrant to the assertion 
and prophecies of politicians and Protestants. They prove 
that in the Catholic Church there is a school at variance with 
the doctrinal teaching of the Holv See in matters which are 



the Vatican Decrees. 27 

not of faith. But they do not reveal how small ihat scl)oul is. 
Its centre would seem to be at Munich. It has, both in France 
and England, a small number of adherents. They are active, 
they correspond, and for the most part write anonymously. It 
would be difficult to describe its tenets, for none of its followers 
seem to be agreed in all points. Some hold the Infalllibilty of 
the Pope, and some defend the Temporal Power. Nothing 
appears to be common to all, except an animus of opposition 
to the acts of the Holy See in matters outside the faidi. 

' In this country, about a year ago, an attempt was made 
to render impossible, as it was confidently but vainly thought, 
the dehnition of the InfaUibility of the Pontiff by reviving the 
monotonous controversy about Pope Honorius. Later, we 
were told of I know not what combination of exalted person- 
ages in France for the same end. It is certain that these 
symptoms are not sporadic and disconnected, but in mutual 
understanding and with a common purpose. The anti-Catholic 
press has eagerly encouraged this school of thought. If a 
Catholic can be found out of tune widi authority by half a 
note, he is at once extolled for unequalled learning and irre- 
fragable logic. The anti-Catholic journals are at his service, 
and he vents his opposition to the common opinions of the 
Church by writing against them anonymously. Sad as this is, 
it is not formidable. It has effect almost alone upon those 
who are not Catholic. Upon Catholics its effect is hardly ap- 
preciable ; on the Theological Schools of the Church it will 
have little influence; upon the CEcumenical Council it can 
have none. 

'I can hardly persuade myself to believe that the Univer- 
sity of Munich does not know that the relations between the 
Pope, even supposed to be infallible, and the Civil Powers have 
been long since precisely defined in the same acts which de- 
fined the relations between the Church, known to be infallible, 
and tlie Civil Authority. Twelve Synods or Councils, two of 



28 Ale anil ig and BJ/cct of 

them (Ecumenical, have long ago laid down these relations of 
the Spiritual and Civil Povv^ers.^ If the Pope were declared to 
be infallible to-morrow, it would in no way affect those 
relations. 

* We may be sure . . . that this intellectual disaffec- 
tion, of which, in these last days, we have had in France a 
new and mournful example, will have no influence upon either 
the (Ecumenical Council or the policy of the Great Powers of 
Europe. They will not meddle with speculations of theologi- 
cal or historical critics. They know too well that they cannot 
do in the nineteenth century what was done in the sixteenth 
and the seventeenth. 

' The attempt to put a pressure upon the General Council, 
if it have any effect upon those who are subject to certain go- 
vernments, would have no effect but to rouse a just indigna- 
tion in the Episcopate of the Church throughout the world. 
They hold their jurisdiction fi'om a higher fountain, and they 
recognise no superior in their office of Judges of Doctrine, 
save only the Vicar of Jesus Christ. This preliminary med- 
dling has already awakened a sense of profound responsibihty 
and an inflexible resolution to allow no pressure or influence, 
or menace or intrigue, to cast so much as a shadow across 
their fidelity to the Divine Head of the Church and to Plis Vicar 
upon earth. 

' Moreover, we live in days when the *' Regium Placitum " 
and ^'Exequaturs" and <^ Arrets" of Parliament in Spiritual 
things are simply dead. It may have been possible to hinder 
the promulgation of the Council of Trent: it is impossible to 
hinder the promulgation of the Council of the Vatican. Tlie 
very liberty of which men are proud will publish it. Ten 
thousand presses in all lands will promulgate every act of the 
Church and of the Pontiff, in the face of all Civil Powers. 

^ Bellarm. Optiscida adv. Ba'clmcm, p. 845, ed. Col. 1617, 



tlie Vatican Decrees, 29 

Once published, tliese acts enter the domain of faith and con- 
science, and no human legishition, no civil authority, can efface 
them. The two hundred millions of Catholics will know the 
Decrees of the Vatican Council; and to know them is to obey. 
The Council will ask no civil enforcement, and it will need no 
civil aid. The Great Powers of Europe have long declared that 
the conscience of men is {\'^q from civil constraint. They will 
not stultify their own decla.rations by attempting to restrain the 
acts of the Vatican Council Tiie guardians and defenders of 
the principles of 1789 ought to rise as one man against all who 
should so violate the base of the political society in France. 
What attitude lesser Governments may take is of lesser mo- 
ment/ 

(2) I will now state positively what the Council has 
defined on the subject of the Roman Pontiff. The 
history then of the Definition of the Infallibility is as 
follows : — 

I. Two Schemata, as they w^ere called, or treatises, 
had been prepared : the one on the nature of the 
Church ; the other on its relations to the Civil State. 

The first alone came before the Council ; the second 
has never yet been so much as discussed. 

In the scliema on the nature of the Church, its In- 
fallibility v/as treated ; but the Infallibility of its Head 
was not so much as mentioned. His Primacy and 
authority alone were treated. In the end, the chapter 
relating to the Primacy and authority was taken out, 
and subdivided into four. The subject of the Infalli- 
bility of the Roman Pontiff was then introduced. 

The reasons for this change of order were given in 
1870, as follows : — 

In all theological treatises, excepting indeed one 



30 Mecin'uig and Effect of 

or two of great authority, it had been usual to treat 
of the Body of the Church before treating of its Head. 
The reason of this would appear to be that in the 
exposition of doctrine the logical order was the more 
obvious ; and to the faithful, in the first formation of 
the Church, the Body of the Church was known before 
its Head. We might have expected that the Council 
would have followed the same method. It is, therefore, 
all the more remarkable that the Council inverted that 
order, and defined the prerogative of the Head before 
it treated of the constitution and endownnents of the 
Body. And this, which Vv^as brought about by the 
pressure of special events, is not v/ithout significance. 
The schools of the Church have followed the logical 
order; but the Church in Council, when for the first 
time it began to trea.t of its owm constitution and 
authority, changed the method, and, like the Divine 
Architect of the Church, began in the historical order, 
with the foundation and Head of the Church. Our 
Divine Lord first chose Cephas, and invested him v/ith 
the primacy over the Apostles. Upon this rock all 
were built, and from him the wdiole unity and author- 
ity of the Church took its rise. To Peter alone first 
was given the plenitude of jurisdiction and of infallible 
authority. Afterwards, the gift of the Holy Ghost 
was shared v/ith him by all the Apostles. From him 
and through him thereifore all began. For which cause 
a clear and precise conception of his Primacy and privi- 
lege is necessary to a clear and precise conception of 
the Church. Unless it be first distinctly apprehended, 
the doctrine of the Church will be always proportion- 
ately obscure. The doctrine of the Church does not 



the Vaticaji Decrees. 3 1 

determine the doctrine of the Primacy, but the doc- 
trine of the Primacy does precisely determine the doc- 
trine of the Church. In beginning, therefore, with the 
Plead, the Council has followed our Lord's example, 
both in teaching and in fact ; and in this will be found 
one of the causes of the singular and luminous pre- 
cision with which the Council of the Vatican has, in 
one brief Constitution, excluded the well-known errors 
on the Primacy and Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. 
The reasons which prevailed to bring about this 
change of method were not only those which demon- 
strated generally the opportuneness of defining the 
doctrine, but those also which showed specially the 
necessity of bringing on the question while as yet the 
Council was in the fulness of its numbers. It w^as ob- " 
vious that the length of time consumed in the discus- 
sion, reformation, and voting of the Schemata was such 
that, unless the Constitution De Romano Pontijice were 
brought on immediately after Easter, it could not be 
finished before the setting in of summer should compel 
the bishops to disperse. Once dispersed, it Avas 
obvious they could never again reassemble in so large 
a number. Many who with great earnestness desired 
to share the blessing and the grace of extinguishing 
the most dangerous error which for two centuries had 
disturbed and harassed the faithful, would have been 
compelled to go back to their distant sees and mis- 
sions, never to return. It was obviously of the first 
moment that such a question should be discussed and 
decided, not, as we should Iiave been told, in holes and 
corners, or by a handful of bisliops, or by a faction, or 
ijy a clique, but by the largest possible assembl}' of the 



o 



2 Meaning and Effect of 



Catholic Episcopate. All other questions, on which 
little divergence of opinion existed, might well be left 
to a smaller number of bishops ; but a doctrine which 
for so long had vexed both pastors and people, the de- 
fining, not the truth, of which was contested by a nu- 
merous and organised opposition, needed to be treated 
and affirmed by the most extensive deliberation of the 
bishops of the Catholic Church. Add to this the many 
perils which hung over the continuance of the Council, 
of which I need but give one example. The outbreak 
of a war might have rendered the definition impossible. 
And in fact the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was 
defined on the eighteenth of July, and war Vvas offici- 
ally declared on the follov/ing day. 

With these and many other contingencies fully be- 
fore them, those who believed that the definition was, 
not only opportune, but necessary for the unity of tdie 
Church and of the Faith, urged its immediate discus- 
sion. Events justified their foresight. The debate was 
prolonged into the heats of July, whenj by mutual con- 
sent, the opposing sides withdrew from a further pro- 
longing of the contest, and closed the discussion. If 
it had not been already protracted beyond all limits of 
reasonable debate — for not less than a hundred fathers 
in the general and special discussions had spoken chiefly, 
if not alone, of Infallibility — it could not so have end- 
ed. Both sides were convinced that the matter was 
exhausted.^ 

2. In order to demonstrate, if possible, more abun- 
dantly that the Vatican Council has not so much as 

^ Pet}i Pfivikgium, part iii. pp. 51-54. 



the Vatican Decrees. 2>Z 

touched the relations of the Church to the Civil Power, 
I will give a brief analysis of its Definitions in what is 
called the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church 
of Christ. 

It is, as I have said, a portion of the Schema or 
treatise on the Church, taken out and enlarged into a 
Constitution by itself. There would have been only 
one Constitution treating of both the Body and the 
Head of the Church. Now there are two. The first, 
treating of the Head, has been completed ; the second, 
treating of the Body, yet remains. 

Now of the First Constitution there are four chap- 
ters. 

The first treats of the Institution of the Apostolic 
Primacy in Saint Peter. The sum of it is that Our 
Lord appointed Peter to be Head of the whole Church, 
and gave him immediately a Primacy, not of honour 
only, but of jurisdiction. There is here not a v/ord of 
anything but the Pastoral or Spiritual power. 

The second declares the Primacy to be perpetual. 
It affirms tw6 things : the one that Peter has a perpetu- 
al line of successors, and that the Roman Pontiff is the 
successor of Peter in that Primacy. 

The third affirms the jurisdiction of the Roman Pon- 
tiff to be full and supreme in all things of faith and 
morals, and also in discipline and government of the 
Church; and that this jurisdiction is ordinary and ini- 
inediate over all Churches and persons. 

The fourth chapter treats of the InfalliljiHty of the 
Magistcriiim, or the teaching authority of the Roman 
Pontiff. This cliaptcr affirms that a Divine assistance 
was given to Peter, and in Peter to his successors for 



34 • MeoAiing and Effect of 

the discharge of their supreme office. It affirms also 
that this is a tradition received from the beginning of 
the Christian Faith. The}% therefore, who tell us that 
the Vatican Council has brought in a new doctrine show 
that they do not know what the Vatican Council has 
said, and what it is that they must refute before their 
charge of innovation can be listened to. 
Now it is to be observed : 

1. That the Council declares that the Roman 
Pontiff, speaking ex cathedra^ has a Divine 
assistance which preserves him from error. 

2. That he speaks ex cathedra wdien he speaks 
under these five conditions: (i) as Supreme 
Teacher (2) to the whole Church. (3) Defin- 
ing a doctrine (4) to be held by the whole 
Church (5) in faith and morals. 

If disputants and controversialists had read and 
mastered these five conditions, we should have been 
spared much senseless clamour. 

3. Lastly, it is to be observed that the Council has 
not defined the limit of the phrase ^ faith and morals.' 
This well-known formula is plain and intelligible. The 
deposit committed to the Church is the Revelation of 
Divine Truth, and of the Divine Law. The Church 
is the guardian and witness, the interpreter and the 
expositor of the Truth and of the Law of God. Such 
is the meaning of ' faith and morals.* It is a formula 
well known, perfectly clear, sufficiently precise for our 
spiritual and moral life. If questions may be raised 
about the limits of faith and morals, it is because 
questions may be raised about anything ; and questions 
will always be raised bv those v.-ho love contention 



the VaiiciDi Deo^ees. i ^ 

against the Catholic Churckniore than they love either 
faith or nn orals. All argument against the Vatican 
Council as to the limits or extent of this formula is so 
much labour lost. It has not so much as touclied the 
extent or the lim.its. 

Such, then, is the whole of the first Constitution 
De Ecclesia Ciiristi. It does not contain a syllable of 
the relation of this Primacy to the Civil or Political 
State, except to say that no human authority is needed 
for the validity of its acts, nor may an^^ human power 
hinder their exercise. But these are truths as old 
as the day wdien St. Peter said before the council in 
Jerusalem, ' If it be just, in the sight of God, to 
hear you rather than God, judge ye.' ^ I hope, then, 
I have justified my assertion that tht^ Vatican Council 
has ;iot changed by a jot or a tittle the civil allegiance 
of Catholics. It is as free and perfect now as it was 
before. 

As I have affirmed that the doctrine of the Infalli- 
bility of the Head of the Church w\as a doctrine of 
Divine Faith before the Council, and tliat the denial 
of it was confined to a small school of writers, I might 
be expected here to offer tb.e historical proof of this 
assertion. 

But. \ have already done so in the year iS6g, before 
the Council assembled. I would therefore refer to the 
second part of * Petri Privilegium • ^ for, as I believe, a 
sufficient proof. I will, liowever, in few words give 
the outline of what was then said. 

It is acknowledged by the adversaries of the doc- 
trine that from the Council of Constance in 1414 to 
' Acts iv. 19. - Fart ii. ]^p. 63-107. 



36 Meaning and Effect of 

this day the doctrine has been the predominant beHef 
of the Church. I gave evidence of its existence,Jrom 
the Council of Constance upwards to the Council of 
Chalcedon in 445. 

Next I traced the history of the growth of the 
opinions adverse to the Infallibility of the Roman 
Pontiff from the Council of Constance to the year 1682, 
when it was, for the first time, reduced to formula by 
an assembly of French ecclesiastics under the influence 
of Louis XIV. 

Lastly, I showed how this formula was no sooner 
published than it was condemned in every Catholic 
country by bishops and universities, and by the Holy 
See. The sum of the evidence for the first period was 
then given as follows : — 

Gallicanism is no more than a transient and modern 
opinion, Avhich arose in France, without warrant or 
antecedents in the ancient theological schools of the 
French Church ; a royal theology, as suddenly developed 
and as parenthetical as the Thirty-nine Articles, af- 
firmed only by a small number out of the numerous 
Episcopate of France, indignantly rejected by many of 
them ; condemned in succession by three Pontiffs ; de- 
clared by the Universities of Louvain and Douai to 
be erroneous ; retracted by the bishops of France ; 
condemned by Spain, Hungary, and other countries; 
and condemned over arain in the Bull Atictorcm Fidei, 

From this evidence it is certain : — ■ 

I. That Gallicanism has no warrant in the doc- 
trinal practice or tradition of the Church, 
either in France or at large, in the thousand 
years preceding the Council of Constance. 



the Vatican Decrees. 37 

2. That the first traces of Gallicanism are to be 
found about the time of that CounciL 

3. That after the Council of Constance they were 
rapidly and almost altogether effaced from 
the theology of the Church in France, until 
their revival in 1682. 

4. That the Articles of 1682 were conceived by 
Jansenists, and carried through by political 

and oppressive means contrary to the sense of 
the Church in France. 

5. That the theological faculties of the Sorbonne, 
and of France generally, nobly resisted and 
refused to teach them.^ 

But Gallicanism was the only formal interruption 
of the universal belief of the Church in the Infallibility 
of its Head. The Vatican Council extinguished this 
modern error. 

II. Having thus far offered proof of the first pro- 
position in my first letter, I will now go on to the 
second. 

I there affirmed that the Civil Allegiance of 

Catholics is as undivided as that of all Christians, and 

of all men who recognise a divine or natur^il moral law. 

Mr. Gladstone requires of us * solid and undivided 

allegiance."^ 

I must confess to some surprise at this demand. 
The allegiance of every moral being is divided,' that 
is, twofold ; not, indeed, in the same matter nor on the 
same plane, but in two spheres, and on a higher and a 
lower level, so that no collision is possible, except by 

* Petri Privilc^-lum, part ii. p. 56. * P- 44- 



3S Meaning and Ejj'cct of 

some deviation or excess. Every moral being is under 
two authorities — human and divine. The child is 
under the authority of parents, and the authority of 
God ; th^ subject is under the authority of the Civil 
State, and the Divine authority of natural or revealed 
religion. Unless we claim Infallibility for the Stato, 
its acts must be liable to revision, and to resistance by 
natural conscience. \ An unlimited obedience to parents 
or to States would generate a race of unlimited mon- 
sters. Surely these are truisms. Our Lord Himself 
taught this division when He said, ^ Render therefore to 
Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the 
things that are God's.' But this all men admit when 
they think. Unfortunately, Vvdien they attack the 
Catholic Church or the Vatican Council they seldom 
think much. 

Put the objection in this form : ' We non-Catholics 
acknowledge two authorities as you Catholics do. 
Oar allegiance to the civil law is revised and checked 
by our consciences, guided by the light of nature and 
by the light of revelation. We refuse to receive reli- 
gious doctrine or discipline from the State. We allow 
the Society of Friends, for conscience sake, to refuse 
to take an oath of allegiance, and even to fight for 
their country, for conscience sake; and yet these two 
are among the natural duties of subjects which the 
civil authority may most justly both require and en- 
foixe. We therefore leave every man free to refuse 
obedience to civil laws if his conscience so demands of 
liim. But you Catholics put your conscience into the 
hands of the Pope. You are bound to follow his in- 
terpretation of the civil law; and he tells you when 



the Vat lea ?z Deerees. 39 

your conscience ought to refuse obedience whether you 
see it or not; worse than this, the Pope may WTongly 
interpret our civil laws, or he may even so interpret 
them as to serve his own interests ; and then your 
moral and mental freedom is at the mercy of another. 
You must choose between your religion and your 
country.' I think I have not understated the argument 
of our adversaries. 

To this the answer is tv/ofold. First, that the 
non-Catholic doctrine is more dangerous to the Civil 
State than the Catholic. If any individual conscience 
may dispense itself from civil obedience, then almost 
all men will obey only ' for v/ratli ' and not for * con- 
science sake/ ^ And such, in fact, is the condition of 
millions of men. I could wish that the mental state of the 
masses were better known. I wish it were possible to 
ascertain, by letting down a thermometer into the deep 
sea of our population, what notions remain of loyalty 
or allegiance. No doubt, in an insular population like 
ours, the traditional custom of inert conformity with 
law maintains a passive compliance which passes for 
Civil Allegiance. But take the population of countries 
where the so-called rights of the political conscience of 
individuals have had their legitimate development. A 
law is a law so far as it is accepted ; a man is bound by 
the law so far as he had a hand in making it. If >'ou 
once admit tliat the ultimate decision as to civil obe- 
dience is in the individual, each political conscience 
is a lawgiver and a law to itself. You cannot fly prin- 
ciples with a string as boys fly kites. Once enunciated 

' Rom. y.iii. 5. 



40 Mea7iing and Ji^lci of 

they hav^e nothing to control them., /If every man has 
the ultimate right of refusing obedience to the law upon 
the dictates of his own conscience, then we are in a state 
of unhmited. license, which is potentially a state of un- 
limited revolution. And such, in truth, since 1789 has 
been the state of the west of Europe. It is in a state 
of chronic instabihtv and continuous chano-e. More 
than forty revolutions have sprung from this essential 
lawlessness. 

Secondly, according to the doctrine of the Catholic 
Church, the rights of individual conscience are secured 
not only against external coercion, but against its own 
aberrations. The obedience of Cathohc subjects to 
their Civil Rulers is a positive precept of religion. The 
rising against legitimate authority is forbidden as the 
sin of rebellion. The Syllabus has condemned the pro- 
positions : — 

' Authority is nothing else but the result of 

numerical superiority and material force.' — 

Prop. 60. 
* It is allowable to refuse obedience to legitimate 

Princes, and also to rebel against them.' — 

Prop. 63. 
The political conscience of CathoHcs is not left to the 
individual judgment alone. It is guided by the whole 
Christian morality, by the greatest system of ethical 
legislation the world has ever seen, the Canon Law 
and the Moral Theology of the Catholic Church. Not 
only all capricious and wilful resistances of the Civil 
Law, but all unreasonable and contentious disobedi- 
ence is condemned by its authority, It is a doctriric 
of faith that leritim.ate sovereiijntv exists not cnl\' in 



the Vatican Dec7'ees. 41 

the unity of the Church, but outside of the same ; and 
not only among Christian nations, but also among the 
nations that are not Christian/ Moreover, that to all 
such legitimate sovereigns subjects are bound by 
the Divine Law ^ to render obedience in all lawful 
things. It is certain, threfore, that Catholics * are 
bound to Civil Allegiance by every bond, natural ^ 
and supernatural, as absolutely as their non-Catholic 1 
fellow-countrymen ; and, I must add, more explicitly. \ 
And further, that they can hardly be reduced to the 
necessity of using their private judgment as to the 
lawfulness of obeying any law. In all matters of 
ordinary civil and political life, the duty of Catholics is 
already defined by a wdiole code which enforces obedi- 
ence for conscience sake. In the rare case of doubt 
which may arise in times of religious persecution, poli- 
tical revolution, civil w^ars, or wars of succession, 
Catholic and non-Catholic subjects are alike in this, — 
they are both compelled to choose 'their side. But the 
non-Catholic subject has hardly law or judge to aid his 
conscience : the Catholic has both. He has the whole 
traditional moral law of Christendon, which has formed 
and perpetuated the civil and political order of the 
modern world, and he has a multitude of principles, 
maxims, and precedents on Avhich to form his own 
judgment. Finally, if he be unable so to do, he can 
seek for guidance from an authority which the whole 
Christian world once believed to be the highest jucHcIal 
tribunal and the source of its civil order and stabiHt}'. 
And is this to place * liis mental and moral freedom at 

* Rom. xiil. 1-4. ' fit. Prter il. ij-15. 



42 MeaniiLg ajid Effect of 

the mercy of another ? ' As much as and no more than 
we place ourselves * at the mercy ' of the Christian 
Church for our salvation. Let us take an example. 
It is certain, by the natural and Divine Law, that 
every man miay defend himself, and that every people 
has the right of self-defence. On this ail defensive 
wars are justifiable. But if the Sovereign levy war 
upon his people, have they the right of self-defence ? 
Beyond all doubt. But at what point may they take 
up arms? and what amount of oppression justifies re- 
course to resistance ? For the non-Catholics there can 
only be these answers. ' He must go by the light of 
his ov/n conscience, or he must be guided by the judg- 
ment of the greater number, or by the Vv^iser heads of 
his nation.' But the greater number may not be the 
wiser ; and to judge Vv'ho are the wiser throws the judg- 
ment once more upon himself. The Catholic subject 
Vv^ould use his own judgment, and the judgment of his 
countrymen, but he would not hold himself at liberty 
to take up arms unless the Christian lav/ confirmed the 
justice of his judgment. But from whom is this judg- 
ment to be sought ? He v/ould ask it of all those of 
whom he asks counsel in the salvation of his soul. If 
this is to be at the mercy of another, we are all at the 
mercy of those whom we believe to be wiser than our- 
selves. 

Let us take an example. The Italian people h.ave 
been for tv/enty years spectators of a revolution which 
has overthrown the Sovereigns of Naples and Tuscany. 
I will ask two questions. First, Avould any Italian 
place himself at the mercy of another, if he should ask 



the Vatican Decrees. 43 

of the head of his religion what course as a Christian 
he ought to pursue? 

And, secondly, what has been the action of the 
Pope in respect to the Italian revolution ? He has 
said that to co-operate in the Italian revolution is not 
lawful. Surely, if Italians are free to form their con- 
science on the doctrines of the revolution, they are 
equally free to form their conscience on the doctrines 
of their religion. To deny this is to have tw^o weights 
and two measures. The non-Catholic theory tells us 
that the conscience of subjects is the ultimate test. Be 
it so; my conscience tells me that it is right to obey 
my religion rather than the revolution. If this be a 
divided allegiance, then it is Christianity which has in- 
troduced it, and not the Church. It Avas our Lord Him- 
self who, by instituting His Church, separated forever 
the two powers, Civil and Spiritual, thereby redeeming 
the conscience and the religion of men from the domin- 
ion of princes, and conferring upon the Civil Power the 
consecration by wdiich it is confirmed, and the higher 
law by which its sphere is defined. It is all this, and 
not' *our old friend the deposing power alone/ which 
I have described as teaching obedience to subjects and 
moderation to princes.^ In all conflicts between the 
Civil and Spiritual, the consciences of Christians v/ill 
be decided by the Christian law. 

I conclude, therefore, this part of the subject by re- 
asserting : — 

I. That the relations of the Church to tlie State 



* Expos fiilati oily p. 52. 

^ Temporal Poiucr of the Pcpc, iM). A\-^^\ second od. 1S62. 



44 Meaning and Effect of 

were never so much as proposed for discussion in 
the Vatican Council. 

2. That in its Constitutions or Definitions it has in 
no way touched the subject. 

3. That the Definitions of the Council are ^ declara- 
tory ' of doctrine already of Divine Faith, and 
that no new * enactment ' whatsoever was made. 

4. That the relations of the Church to the Civil 
Power were left by the Vatican Council as they 
Vv'ere known and declared by the Council of Trent 
and all previous Councils. 

I will therefore ansv/er ?slr. Gladstone's questions in 
page 44 of his ^ Expostulation.' He tells us that * what 
is not wanted is vague and general assertion of what- 
ever kind, and howsoever sincere. What is wanted, and 
that in the most specific form and in the clearest terms, 
I take to be one of two things, that is to say, either — • 
^ I. A demonstration that neither in the name of 
faith, nor in the name of morals, nor in the name 
of the government or discipline of the Church, 
is the Pope of Rome able, by virtue of the pow- 
ers asserted for him by the Vatican decree, to 
make any claim upon those who adhere to his 
communion of such a nature as can impair the 
integrity of their Civil allegiance ; or else, 
* 2. That if, and Vvdien such claim is made, it will 
even, although resting on the definitions of 
the Vatican, be repelled and rejected.' ^ 
I have shown that the Pope is not able, by the 
Vatican Council, to make any claim in the name of 

^ TJu Vatican Decrees^ p. 44. 



the Vatican Decrees. 45 

faith, nor 111 the name of morals, nor in the name of 
the government or discipHne of the Church, which he 
was not able to make before the Vatican Council ex- 
isted. 

To Mr. Gladstone's first question, therefore, I an- 
swer, that neither in virtue of the Vatican Decrees, nor 
of any other decrees, nor of his supreme authority as 
Head of the Christian Church, can the Pope make any 
claim upon those who adhere to his communion of such 
a nature as can impair the integrity of their Civil 
Allegiance. 

To his second question, therefore, the answer is 
already given. I have no need to declare myself ready 
to repel and reject that which the Pope cannot do. He 
cannot do an act contrary to the Divine Law ; but to 
impair my Civil Allegiance would be contrary to the 
Law of God. 

It is strange to me that so acute a reasoner should 
have begged the question, which is this : By whom 
are the limits of Civil Allegiance to be determined? 
If Mr. Gladstone should say by the State, I would ask 
— Does he mean that the State is infallible in morals? 
or that subjects have no conscience, or that the State 
may coerce their conscience, or that the State can 
create a morality which all consciences must obey ? 
Some of these postulates are inevitably assumed in his 
question, if it has any meaning. 

My reasons for saying this will be seen in the fol- 
lowing chapter. 



46 Relations of the 



CHAPTER 11. 

THE RELATIONS OF THE SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL 

POWERS. 

We will now go on to my second proposition, that the 
relations of the Catholic Church to the Civil Powers 
have been fixed innmutably from the beginning, be- 
cause they arise out of the Divine constitution of the 
Church and out of the Civil Society of the natural 
order. 

L Inasmuch as the natural and civil society existed 
before the foundation of the Christian Church, we will 
begin wuth it ; and here my concessions, or rather my 
assertions, will, I hope, satisfy all but Caesarists. 

1. The civil society of men has God for its 
Founder. It was created potentially in the creation 
of man ; and from him has been unfolded into actual 
existence. The humxan family contains the first princi- 
ples and laws of authority, obedience, and order. 
These three conditions of society are of Divine origin ; 
and they are the constructive laws of all civil or poli- 
tical society. 

2. To the Civil Society of mankind supreme autho- 
rity is given immediately by God ; for a society does 
not signify mere number, but number organised by the 
laws and principles which its Divine Founder implanted 
in the human family. Sovereignty, therefore, is given 
by God immediately to human society; and mediately, 
or mediante societate, to the person or persons to 



Spiritical and Civil Powers. 47 

whom society may commit its custody and its exercise. 
When once the supreme power or sovereignty has been 
committed by any society to a king, or to consuls, or 
to a council, as the case m^ay be — for God has given no 
special form of Civil Government — though it be not 
held by those who receive it by any Divine right, as 
against the society which gave it, nevertheless it has 
both a Divine sanction and a Divine authority. For 
instance, it has the power of life and death. God 
alone could give to man this power over man. God 
gave it to man for self-defence. It passes to society at 
large, which likewise has the right of self-defence. It 
is committed by society to its chief executive. But, 
inasmuch as the supreme power is still given by God 
to the Civil Ruler, even though it be mediately, it has 
a Divine sanction ; and so long as the Civil Ruler does 
not deviate from the end of his existence, the society 
has no power to revoke its act. For example: the 
Civil Ruler is for the defence of the people ; but if he 
should make war upon the people, the right of self-de- 
fence would justify resistance. I am not now^ engaged 
in saying when or how ; but the right is undeniable. 
Manslaughter is not murder, if it be in self-defence; 
wars of defence are lawful ; and just resistance to an 
unjust prince is not rebellion. All this is founded 
upon the Divine sanctions of the civil and political 
society of man, even in the order of nature. It has, 
then, God for its Founder, for its Legislator, and by 
His divine Providence for its supreme Ruler. 

3. The laws of such society are the laws of nature. It 
is bound by the natural morality WM'itten on the con- 
science and on the heart. The ethics wliich ^:^o^'^rn 



48 Relations of the 

men become politics in the government of states. 
Politics are but the collective morals of society. The 
Civil Ruler or Sovereign is bound by the laws : the 
subject within the sphere of these laws ow^es to him a 
civil allegiance. The Civil Ruler may bind all subjects 
by an oath of allegiance. He may call on all to bear 
arms for the safety of the State. 

4. The State has for its end, not only the safety of 
person and property, but, in its fullest sense, the tem- 
poral happiness of man. Within the sphere of natural 
morality, and in order to its end, the State is supreme : 
and its power is from God. This is the meaning of St. 
Paul's words : — ■ 

' Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is 
no power but from God ; and those that are, are ordained oi 
God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordi- 
nance cf God ; and they tliat resist, purchase to themselves 
damnation. . . . For he is God's minister to thee for good. 
But if thou do that which is evil, fear, for he beareth not the 
sword in vain : for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute 
wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore be subject of 
necessity, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake.'^ 

The State, then, is a perfect society, supreme within its 
own sphere, and in order to its ow^n end : but as that 
end is not the highest end of man, so the State is not 
the highest society among men ; nor is it, beyond its 
own sphere and end, supreme. I have draw^n this out 
in greater fulness to show that the Church is in the 
highest dec^ree conservative of all the natural au- 
thority cf rulers, and of the natural allegiance of 

^ Romans xiii. i-"?. 



spiritual and Civil Powers, 49 

subjects. It is mere shallowness to say that between 
the Civil authority, as Divinely founded in nature, and 
the spiritual authority of the Church there can be op- 
position. 

Now, as to the Divine institution of the Civil So- 
ciety of the Avorld and of its independence in all things 
of the natural order, what I have already said' is enough. 
The laws of the order of nature are from God. So long 
as a father exercises his domestic authority according 
to the law of God, no other authority can intervene to 
control or to hinder his government. So likewise of the 
Prince or Sovereign power, be it lodged in one or in 
many. There is no authority upon earth which can 
depose a just sovereign or release such subjects from 
their obedience.^ 

II. There is, however, another society, the end of 
which is the eternal happiness of mankind. This also 
has God for its Founder, and that immediately; and it 
has received from God its form and constitution, and 
its rulers receive their authority immediately,* v/ith a 
special Divine sanction and authority, from God. 

Two things follow at once from this : — 

1. That the society which has for its end the 
eternal happiness of man is of an order higher 
than the society which aims only at the natural 
happiness of man. 

2. That as the temporal and the eternal happi- 
ness of man are. both ordered by Divine laws, 
these two societies are, of necessity, in essen- 

^ ' Eliam noccntiiim potcstas non est nisi a Deo.'— St. Augustine, 
De Naitira Bonl contra AlanicJi, cap, xxxii. 

^ SuaiGz, Defcnsio Fidel, lib. iii. cap. ii. sect. 5, 15, 16. 



50 Relations of the 

tial conformity and harmony with each other. 
CoUision between them can only be if either 
deviates from its respective laws. 
The natural society of man aims directly 2X the tem- 
poral happiness of its subjects, but indirectly it aims 
also at their eternal happiness : the supernatural society 
aims directly at their eternal happiness, and indirectly 
at their temporal happiness, but always in so far only 
as their temporal happiness is conducive to their eter- 
nal end. 

From this again two other corollaries follow : — 

1. That the higher or supernatural society is 
supreme because it has no other society, above 
it or beyond it, with an end higher than its 
own. 

2. That the office of the supernatural society is 
to aid, direct, and perfect the natural society ; 
that its action upon it is always in cedifica- 
tionein nan in destructioneni^ inasmuch as it is 
governed by the same Divine Lawgiver, and 
it is directed to an end which includes and en- 
sures the end of the natural society also. 

To put this brief!}-. The State has for its end the 
temporal happiness of its subjects ; the Church has for 
its end their eternal happiness. In aiming directly at 
temporal happiness, the State aims also indirectly at 
the eternal ; for these things are promoted by the same 
laws. In aiming at eternal happiness, the Church also 
indirectly aims at the temporal happiness of men. 

III. The Divine Founder ofthe Christian Church said: 
' To thee I \\n\\ give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 
And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be 



spiritual and Civil Powers. 51 

bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose 
on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.' ^ And again : 
*A11 power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 
Going therefore, teach all nations,* ..." teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
manded you.' ' 

If these two commissions do not confer upon the 
Christian Church a supreme doctrinal authority, and 
a supreme judicial office, in respect to the moral law, 
over all nations, and over all persons, both governors 
and governed, I know not what words could suffice to 
do so. 

That authority and that office are directive and pre- 
ceptive, so long as Princes and their laws are in con- 
formity with the Christian law ; and judicial, ratione 
pcccati^ by reason of sin, whensoever they deviate from 
it. 

If any man deny this, he would thereby affirm that 
Princes have no superior upon earth : which is the doc- 
trine of the heathen Caesarism. 

But no man will say that Princes have no superior. 
It is unmeaning to say that they have no superior but 
the law of God : for that is to play with words. A law 
is no superior without an authority to judge and to ap- 
ply It. 

To say tliat God is the sole Lawgiver of Princes is a 
doctrine unknown, not only to the Catholic Church, but 
to the Constitution of England. When we say, as our old 
Jurists do, Non Rex facit Icgcvi, but Lex facit Regein, we 
mean that there is a will above the King ; an^ that will 

' St. Matthew xvi. ig. '^ Ibid, xxviii. i3, ig. 



52 Relations of the 

is the Civil Society, who judges if and when the King 
deviates from the law. But this doctrine, unless it be 
tempered by vigorous restraint, is chronic revolution. 
What adequate restraint is there but in a Divine 
authority higher than the natural society of man ? 

The Supreme Judicial Power of the Church has no 
jurisdiction over those that are not Christian ; and the 
entire weight of its authority, if it were applied at all 
to such a state, would be applied to confirm the natural 
rights of sovereignty and to enforce the natural duty 
of allegiance: and that, upon the principle that the 
supernatural power of the Church is for edification, not 
for destruction ; that is, to build up and to perfect the 
order of nature, not to pull down a stone in the 
symmetry of the natural society of m.an, St, Thomas 
says : 

* Power and authority are estabhshed by human riglit ; the 
distinction between the faithful and those who do not believe is 
established by Divine right. But the Divine right, which comes 
by grace, does not destroy the human right, which is in the 
order of nature.'^ 

Let us suppose that the Sovereign Power of a hea- 
then people were to make laws contrary to the law of 
God, would the Church intervene to depose such a 
sovereign? Certainly not, on the principle laid down 
by the Apostle, ' What have I to do to judge those that 
are without ? '^ 

Such a people is both individually and socially out- 
side the Divine jurisdiction of the Church. The Church 

^ St. Thomas, ida 2dcBy qucest, x. art. lo. 
^ I Cor. V. 12. 



Spirihial and Civil Powers. 53 

has, therefore, in this respect, no commission to dis- 
charge towards it except to convert it to Christianity. 

But if it be the office of the Church to teach subjects 
to obey even Heathen Rulers, as the Apostle did, how 
much more, in the case of Christian Princes and tlieir 
laws, is it the office of the Church to confirm, conse- 
crate, and enforce the sanctions of religion and of con- 
science, of doctrine and of discipline, the whole code 
of natural and political morality, and all laws that are 
made in conformity with the same. 

If Christian Princes and their laws deviate from the 
law of God, the Church has authority from God to 
judge of that deviation, and by all its powers to enforce 
the correction of that departure from justice. I do not 
see how any man who believes in the Revelation of 
Christianity can dispute this assertion : and to such 
alone I am at present speaking. 

Mr. Gladstone has quoted a passage from an ' Essay 
on Caesarism and Ultramontanism,' in which I have 
claimed for the Church a supremacy in spiritual things 
over the State, and have made this statement : 

' Any power which is independent and can alone fix the 
limits of its own jurisdiction, and can thereby fix the limits of 
all otlier jurisdictions, is, ipso^tt^o^ supreme. But the Church 
of Jesus Christ, within the spnere of revelation — of faith and 
morals — is all this, or is nothing or worse than nothing, an im- 
posture and an usurpation; that is, it is Christ or Antichrist.' ^ 

It is hardly loyal to take the conclusion of a s)'llo- 
gism without the premises. In the very page before 
this quotation I had said : 

* Cicsarisui and Ultramoitanisni^ p. 36. 



54 Relations of the 

* In any question as to the com})etence of the two powers, 
either there must be some judge to decide what does and wiuit 
does not tall within their respective spheres, or they are de- 
'hvered over to perpetual doubt and to perpetual conflict. But 
who can define what is or is not within the jurisdiction of the 
Church in faith and morals, except a judge who knows what 
the sphere of faith and morals contains, and how far it ex- 
tends ? And surely it is not enough that such a judge should 
guess or opine, or pronounce upon doubtful evidence, or with 
an uncertain knowledge. Such a sentence would be, not an 
end- of contention, but a beginning and a renewal of strife. 

' It is clear that tlie Civil Power cannot define how far the 
circumference of faith and morals extends. If it could, it would 
be invested with one of the supernatural endowments of the 
Church. To do this it must know the whole deposit of ex- 
plicit and implicit faith ; or, in other words, it must be the 
guardian of the Christian revelation. Now, no Christian, nor 
any man of sound mind, claims this for the Civil Power. 
.... If, then, the Civil Power be not competent to decide 
the limits of the Spiritual Power, and if the Spiritual Power 
can define w^ith a Divine certainty its own limits, it is evidently 
supreme. Or^ in other words, the Spiritual Power knows with 
Divine certainty the limits of its ow^n jurisdiction ; and it knows 
therefore the limits and the competence of the Civil Power. 
It is thereby in matters of reliodon and conscience supreme.' ^ 

If the Church cannot fix the limits of its juris- 
diction, then either nobody can or the State must. 
But the State cannot unless it claim to be the deposi- 
tory and expositor of the Christian Revelation. There- 
fore it is the Church or nobody. This last supposi- 
tion leads to chaos. Now if this be rejected, the 

^ CcEsaris7n and Ultramontanism ^ pp. 24, 35. 



spiritual and Civil Powers, 55 

Church alone can : and if the Church can fix the Hmits 
of its own jurisdiction, it can fix the Hmits of all other 
jurisdiction ; at least, so far as to warn it off its own 
domain. But this was my conclusion ; and though I 
have seen it held up to odium, I have not yet seen it 
answered. 

But the Church being the highest society, and inde- 
pendent of all others, is supreme over them, in so far 
as the eternal happiness of man is involved. 

From this, again, two consequences follow : — 

1. First, that in all things which are purely 
temporal, and lie extra fifievi EcclcsicB, outside 
of the end of the Church, it neither claims nor 
has jurisdiction. 

2. Secondly, that in all things which promote, 
or hinder, the eternal happiness of men, the 
Church has a power to judge and to enforce. 

IV. Such propositions are no sooner enunciated 
than we are met by a tumult of voices, such as those 
of Jamis^ Quiriniis — and I lament to detect the tones 
of a voice, hitherto heard in behalf of the authority of 
Christianity and of the Christian Church, — affirming 
that the Church of Rome and its Pontiffs claim supreme 
temporal ^ power, and thaj^lirect, over all Temporal 
Princes and things ; to be wH ^t their discretion even 
to the deposing of Kings, to the absolution of subjects 
from allegiance, to the employment of force, imprison- 
ment, torture, and death. 

If such be the state of our highest minds, we cannot 
regret that this discussion has been forced upon us. 

'^Expostulation, \). 27. 



56 Relations of the 

It has come not by our act. It has arisen in its thne 
appointed. It will for awhile raise alarm and suspicion ; 
it will kindle animosity and encourage bigotry : but it 
will manifest the truth with a wider light than England 
has seen for three hundred years. I will therefore 
freely and frankly enter upon this debate, and, in order 
to be, clear, I will treat the subject under the following 
propositions : — 

1. The authority of Princes and the allegiance of 
subjects in the Civil State of nature is of Divine 
ordinance ; and, therefore, so long as Princes and 

^* their laws are in conformity to the law of God, 
the Church has no power or jurisdiction against 
them, nor over them. 

2. If Princes and their laws deviate from the law 
of God, the Church has authority from God to 
judge of that deviation, and to oblige to its cor- 
rection. 

3. The authority which the Church has from God 
for this end is not temporal^ but spiritual. 

4. This spiritual authority is not direct in its inci 
dence on temporal things, but only indirect : 
that is to say, it directly promotes its own jr//- 
ritual^nd] it indirectly condemns and declares 
not binding on the^Jkscieiice such temporal laws 
as deviate from the law of God, and therefore 
impede or render impossible the attainment of 
the eternal happiness of man. 

5. This spiritual authority is inherent in the Divine 
constitution and commission of the Church ; 
but its exercise Jin the w^orld depends on cer- 
tain moral and niaterial conditions, by which 



spiritual and Civil Powers. 57 

alone its exercise is rendered either possible or 
just. 

I have affirmed that the relations of the Catholic 
Church to the Civil Powers are fixed primarily by the 
Divine constitution of the Church and of the Civil So- 
ciety of men. But it is also true that these relations 
have been declared by the Church in acts and decrees 
which are of infallible authority. Such, for instance, is 
the Bull of Boniface VIII., Unain Sanctaui, As this 
has become the text and centre of the whole contro- 
versy at this moment, we will fully treat of it. This 
Bull, then, was beyond all doubt an act ex cathedra. 
It was also confirmed by Leo X. in the Fifth Lateran 
CEcumenical Council. Whatever definition, therefore, 
is to be found in this Bull is to be received as of faith. 
Let it be noted that the Unain Sanctam does not de- 
pend upon the Vatican Council for its infallible autho- 
rity. It was from the date of its publication an infalli- 
ble act, obliging all Catholics to receive it with interior 
assent. Doctrines identical with those of the Lhiam 
Sanctam had been declared in two CEcumenical Coun- 
cils — namely, in the Fourth Lateran in 121 5, and the 
First of Lyons in 1245/ On this ground, therefore, I 
have affirmed that the relations of the Spiritual and 
Civil Powers were irrirantably fixed before the Vatican 
Council met, and that they have been in no way chang- 
ed by it. 

V. We will now examine, (i) the complete text of 
the Unani Sanctam ; (2) the interpretations of its assail- 

* Bellarmin. Dc Potcs'. Pcpcz. in prxf, p 84.}, Cologne, 1617. 



58 Relations of the 

ants and its defenders ; (3) the interpretation which is 
of obligation on all Catholics. 

I. The Bull was published by Boniface VIII., in 
1302, during the contest with Philip le Bel of France. 

Before the Bull was published, the Regalists or 
partisans of the King declared that the Pope had 
claimed, as Mr. Gladstone also supposes, to be 
supreme over the King, both in spiritual and in 
temporal things. The Chancellor Flotte made this 
assertion in the year 1301, at Paris, in the Church 
of Notre Dame. The cardinals sent by Boniface 
declared that the Pope made no such claim ; that he 
claimed no temporal, but only a spiritual power.^ 
Nevertheless this prejudice, once created, before the 
publication of the Unam Saiictarn^ ensured its being 
misinterpreted when it was issued. Boniface, by the 
Bull Ausctilta Fili^ had promptly exposed this misin- 
terpretation. But the prejudice was already estab- 
lished.' 

I will now give the whole text of the Bull, before 
commenting upon it. It runs as follows : — 

* We are bound to believe and to hold, by the obligation of 
faith, one Holy Church, Catholic and also Apostolic; and 
this (Church) we firmly believe and in simplicity confess : out 
of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. As 
the Bridegroom declares in the Canticles, '^ One is my dove, 
my perfect one, she is the only one of her mother, thethosen 
of her that bore her; " ^ who represents the one mystical Body, 
the Head of which is Christ ; and the Head of Christ is God. 

^ Doninger's Church History^ vol. iv. p. 90. 

^ Ibid. p. 91. ^ Cant. vi. 8. 



spiritual and Civil Pozvers. 59 

In which (the one Church) there is one Lord, one Faith, one 
Baptism/ For in the time of the Flood the ark of Noe was 
one, prefiguring the one Church, which was finished in one 
cubit,^ and had one governor and ruler, that is Noe; outside 
of which we read that all things subsisting upon earth were 
destroyed. This also we venerate as one, as the Lord says in 
the Prophet, "Deliver, O God, my soul from the, sword: my 
only one from the hand of the dog." ^ 

'For He prayed for the soul, that is, for Himself; for the 
Head together with the Body: by which Body he designated 
the one only Church, because of the unity of the Bridegroom, 
of the Faith, of the Sacraments, and of the charity of the 
Church. This is that coat of the Lord without seam,* which 
was not rent, but went by lots. Therefore of that one and 
only Church there is one body and one Head, not two heads 
as of a monster : namely, Christ and Christ's Vicar, Peter and 
Peter's successor ; for the Lord Himself said to Peter, " Feed 
my sheep." ^ Mine, he says generally; and not, in particular, 
these or those : by whicl> He is known to have committed all 
to him. If, therefore, Greeks or others say that they were not 
committed to Peter and his successors, they must necessarily 
confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ, for the Lord 
said (in the Gospel) by John, that, there is '' One fold, and one 
only shepherd."^ By the words of the Gospel we are in- 
structed that in this his (that is Peter's) power there are two 
swords, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles 
say, " Behold, here are two swords," that is/ in the Church, 
the Lord did not say, *' It is too much," but " it is enough." 
Assuredly, he who denies that the temporal sword is in the 
power of Peter, gives ill heed to the word of the Lord, saying, 

^ Ephesians iv. 5. ^ Genesis vi. 16. ^ Psalm xxi. 21. 

* St. John xix. 23, 24. ^ St. John xxi. 17. " St. John x. 16, 

'^ St. Luke xxii. 38. 



6o Relations of the 

" Put up again thy sword into its place."' Both, therefore, the 
spiritual sword and the material sword are in the power of 
the Church. But the latter (the material sword) is to 
be wielded on behalf of the Church ; the former (the spiri- 
tual) is to be wielded by the Church : the one by the hand 
of the priest; the other by the hand of kings and soldiers, 
but at the suggestion and sufferance of the priest. The 
one sword ought to be subject to the other, and the 
temporal authority ought to be subject to the spiritual power. 
For whereas the Apostle says, *^ There is no power but from 
God ; and those that are, are ordained of God ; " * they would 
not be ordained (or ordered) if one sword were not subject to 
the other, and as the inferior directed by the other to the high- 
est end. For, according to the blessed Dionysius, it is the law 
of the Divine order that the lowest should be guided to the 
highest by those that are intermediate. Therefore, according 
to the order of the universe, all things are not in equal and im- 
mediate subordination ; but the lowest things are set in order 
by things intermediate, and things inferior hy things superior. 
We ought, therefore, as clearly to confess that the spiritual 
power, both \i\ dignity and excellence, exceeds any earthly 
power, in proportion as spiritual things are better than things 
^temparal. This we see clearly from the giving, and blessing, 
aiid sanctifying x^f tithes, from the reception of the power itself, 
,and from the government of the same things. For, as the 
Jtriith .beai;s .witness, the spiritual power has to instruct, and 
judge the earthly power, if it be not good; and thus the pro- 
phecy of Jeremias is verified of the Church and the ecclesias- 
^cal power : ^' Lo, I liave set thee this day over the nations and 
<Qye-r kingdoms/\etC;^ If^ therefore^ the earthly poVer deviates 
^from its je^d), \t wilj be judged by the spiritual ; but if a lesser 
spiritual ppwey transgresses, it will be judged by its superior; 

^ St. Matthew xxvi. -2. " Romans xiii. i. " Tcreiniali i 10. 



Spiriiiial and Civil Poiuers. 6i 

but if the supreme (deviates), it can be judged, not by man, 
but by God alone, according to the words of the Apostle : 
'^The spiritual man judges all things; he himself is judged by 
no one." ^ This authority, though given to man and exercised 
tnrough man, is not human, but rather Divine — given by the 
Divine voice to Peter, and confirmed to him and his successors 
in Him whom Peter confessed, the Rock, for the Lord said to 
Peter : *• Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be 
bound also in lieaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on 
eardi,. it shall be loosed also in heaven." ^ 

'Whosoever therefore resists this power that is so ordered 
by God, resists the ordinance of God,^ unless, as Manich.a^us 
did, he feign to himself two principles, which we condemn as 
false and heretical ; for, as Moses witnesses, " God created 
heaven and eardi not in the beginnings, but in the beginning." * 
Moreover, we declare, affirm, define, and pronounce it to be 
necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject 
to the Roman Pontiff.' 

2. We will next take the interpretations. They 
may be put into three classes : — 

(i) First, of those who assailed it at the time. 

The theologians and doctors of the school at Paris 
had always taught by a constant tradition that the 
Popes possessed a spiritual and indirect power over 
temporal things. John Gcrson may be taken as the 
representative of them all. He says the ecclesiastical 
power does not possess the dominion and the rights of 
earthly and of heavenly empire, so that it may dis- 
pose at will of the goods of the clergy, and much less 
of the laity ; though it must be conceded that it h.as 

^ I Corinthians ii. 15. ^ St. Mattlicw xvi. ig. 

^ Romans xiii. 2. * Genesis i. 1. 



62 Relations of the 

in these thing an authority {dominiuni) to rule, to 
direct, to regulate, and to ordain/ Such was the 
doctrine of Almain, AUiacus, John of Paris, and of the 
old Sorbonne. It was also the doctrine of the theolo- 
gians of the Council of Constance ; who are always 
quoted as opponents of the Infallibility of the Pope, 
because they held that, though the See of Rome could 
not err, he that sat in it might err. They likewise held 
the deposing power, which alone is enough to show how 
little the definition of the Infallibility has to do with 
the deposition of Kings. 

When the Uiiani Sanctam w^as published, Egidius 
Romanus, the Archbishop of Bourges, wrote against it, 
being deceived into a belief that Boniface claimed a di- 
rect temporal power over the King of France, over and 
above that power which had always been admitted in 
France according to the Bull Novit of Innocent III. — 
viz. an indirect spiritual power in temporal matters 
when involving sin.^ The same course was taken by 
other French writers. 

Boniface had already declared in a Consistory in 
1302 that he had never assumed any jurisdiction which 
belonged to the King ; but that he had declared the 
King to be, like any other Christian, subject to him 
only in regard to sin. 

(2) Secondly, the Regalists once more assailed the 
Unam Sanctam in the reign of Louis XIV. 

Bianchi says that there is not to be found a waiter in 

* Joann. Gerson, De Potest. Eccles. Consid. xii. Bianchi Delia 
Potesta et delta Politia delta Chiesa, torn. i. lib. i. cap. xi. 
^ Bianchi, lib. i. cap. x. 
^ DSllinger's History of the Church, vol. iv. p. 91.^ 



spiritual and Civil Powers, 62^ 

France, before Calvin, who denied this indirect spiritu- 
al power; that the denial was introduced by the Hu- 
guenots about the year 1626; that the Sorbonne began 
to adhere to it, and reduced it to a formula in 1662. 
Bossuet endeavours to fasten on the Unain Sanctarn the 
old Regalist interpretation, and affirms that it was with- 
drawn by Clement V.: which statement is contrary to 
the fact. Clement V., on the contrary, interprets the 
Bull in the true sense, as Boniface had done, declaring 
that Boniface did not thereby subject the King, or the 
Kingdom of France, in any greater degree to the au- 
thority of the Pontiff than they had been before, that 
IS, according to the Bull of Innocent III. Novit^ and the 
doctrines of the old Sorbonne.^ 

The history of the Four Gallican Articles, and of the 
writers who defended them, is too well known to need 
repetition. 

(3) We come, lastly, to those who have assailed it at 
this time. 

It is not a little wearisome to read the same old 
stories over again; and to be told as * scientific his- 
tory ' that Boniface VIII. claimed to have received 
both swords as his own, to be held in his own hand, 
and wielded by him in direct temporal jurisdiction 
over temporal princes. We have all this raked up again 
in Janus, From Jdntis it goes to newspapers, maga- 
zines, and pamphlets. Anybody can interpret a Pope\s 
Bull. There is no need of a knowledge of contempo- 
rary facts, or of the terminology of the Civil or CaniMi 

' Lib. i. cap. xiii. 

^ In the Appendix A wiH be found in fuU the Text of the three 
Pontifical Acts, Novit, Unani Sa7jctam, Meruit. 



64 Relations of the 

Law, or of Pontifical Acts, or of the technical meaning 
of words. A dictionary, and a stout heart to attack the 
Popes, is enough. Such men would have us believe, 
against all the Popes, that they have claimed temporal 
power, properly so called, over temporal Princes. 

VI. I will, therefore, now give what may be affirmed 
to be the true and legitimate interpretation of the 
Unani Sanctani. 

It cannot be better stated than in the words of Dr. 
Dollinger.^ He writes thus : — 

* Boniface opened ihe council, at which there were present 
from France four archbisliops, thirty-five bishops, and six ab- 
bots, in November 1302. One consequence of this council 
appears to have been the celebrated decretal Uiiam Sanciam^ 
which was made public on the i8th of November, and which 
contains an exposition of the relations between the spiritual and 
temporal powers. In the Church, it says, there are two 
powers, a temporal and spiritual, and as far as they are both in 
the Church, they have both the same end: the temporal 
power, the inferior, is subject to the spiritual, the higher and 
more noble; the former must be guided and directed by the 
latter, as the body is by the soul-; it receives from the spiritual 
its consecration and its direction to its highest' object, and 
must therefore, should it ever depart from its destined path, be 
corrected by ihe spiritual power. It is a truth of faiih that all 
men, even kings, are subject to the Pope; if, therefore, they 
should be guilty of grievous sins, in peace or in war, or in the 
government of their kingdcms, and the treatment of their sub- 
jects, and should thus lose sight of the clject to which the 
power of a Christian Prince should be directed, and should give 
public scandal to the people, the Poj^e can admonish them, 

^ Hist. iv. p. 91. 



spiritual and Civil Powers. 65 

since in regard to sin they are subject to the spiritual power ; 
he can correct them; and, if necessity should require it, compel 
them by censures to remove such scandals. For if they were 
not subject to the censures of the Church, whenever they might 
sin in the exercise of the power entrusted to them, it would fol- 
low that as kings they were out of the Church ; that the two 
powers would be totally distinct from each other; and that 
they were descended from distinct and even opposed princi- 
ples, which w^ould be an error approaching to the heresy of the 
Manichees. It was therefore the indirect power of the Church 
over the temporal power of kings which the Pope defended in 
these Bulls; and he had designedly extracted the strongest pas- 
sages of them from the writings of two French theologians, St. 
Bernard and Hugo of St. Victor.' 

The interpretation given here by Dr. Dollinger is 
undoubtedly correct. All Catholics are bound to 
assent to the doctrines here declared; for though they 
are not here defined, yet they are certainly true. The 
only definition, properly so called, in the Bull is con- 
tained in the last sentence. 

Now, upon the doctrines declared by the Bull it is 
to be observed : — 

1. Tlfat it does not say that the two swords were 
given by our Lord to the Church ; but that the 
two swords are in potcstcite Ecelesicv, ^ in the 
power of the Church.' 

2. That it at once goes on to distinguish, * Both 

(swords) are t/i tJie poiver of the Church, the 
spiritual, that is, and the material. But this 
(the material) is to be used for the Church ; 
that (the spiritual) is to be used by the 
Church. This, indeed (^by the hand) of the 



66 Relations of the 

Priest ; that, by the hand of kings and sol- 
diers, but at the bidding and sufferance of the 
Priest/ 

3. That though both swords are in the Church, 

thev are held in different hands, and to be 
used by the subordination of the one to the 
other. Oportet auteni gladiiini esse sub gladio : 
the one sword must be subordinate to the 
other, the lower to the higher. 

4. That Boniface YIIL, in this very Bull Unam 

Sanctaiii, expressly declares that the power 
given to Peter was the * Suprema Spiritualis 
potestas,' not the Temporal, or a mixed-power, 
but purely Spiritual, which may judge all 
Powers, but itself is judged of God alone. 
Now, on the principles already laid down, there 
ought to be no difficulty in rightly and clearly under- 
standing this doctrine. 

I. For first the ^^laterial Sword is as old as human 
society. It was not given by grace, nor held 
by grace, which is a heresy condemned in 
Wiclif by the Council of Constance ; but it 
belongs to the Civil Ruler in the order of na- 
ture, as St. Paul, speaking of the heathen em- 
pire, says : * He beareth not tlie sword in vain ; 
for he is the minister of God to execute 
wrath.* 
Nothing but want of care or thought could have 
led men to forget this, which is a truth and fact of the 
natural order. 

When any prince by baptism became Christian, 
he became subject to the law of God and to the 



spiritual and Civil Powers. 67 

Church as its expositor. He became subject, not 
only as a man, but as a prince ; not only in the duties 
of his private life, but in the duties of his public life 
also. But this did not deprive him of the civil sword, 
nor of any of the rights of the natural order.^ Oportet 
autent gladium esse sttb gladio. The Bull declares that 
the Material Sword which he brought with him 
when he was baptized ought to be subject to the 
Spiritual Sword. But it nowhere says that the 
Material Sword was given to the Church, or that the 
Church gave it to the Imperial Ruler. It is in the 
Church, because he that bears it is in the Church. It 
is the office of the Church to consecrate it, and (insti- 
tuere) to instruct it. But it belongs essentially to the 
natural order, though it is to be exercised according to 
the supernatural order of faith. 

2. When it is said that both Swords are * in tJie 
poiver of the Clnirch' it means that the Church 
in a Christian world includes the natural order 
in its unity. The conception of the Church in- 
cluded the whole complex Christian Society, 
made up of both powers, united in a complete 
visible unity. 
Mr. Bryce, in his excellent work on the Holy Roman 
Empire, says : — 

<Thus the Holy Roman Church and the Holy Roman 
Empire are oiie and the same thing in two aspects ; and Ca- 
tholicism, the principle of the universal Christian Society, is 
also Romanism : that is, rests upon Rome as the origin and 
type of universality, manifesting itself in a mystic dualibm 

* Bianchi, lib. i. cap. iv. . 



68 Relations of the 

which corresponds to the two natures of its Founder. As Di- 
vine and eternal, its head is the Pope, to whom all souls have 
been entrusted ; as human and temporal, the Emperor, com- 
missioned to rule men's bodies and acts.' ^ 

Mr. Bryce has here clearly seen the concrete unity 
of the Christian world ; but he has missed the order 
which creates that unity. His description is what 
Boniface VIII. calls * a monster with two heads.' Mr. 
Bryce quotes this saying in a note. If he had mastered 
the spiritual element as he has mastered the political, 
Mr. Bryce's book would have ranked very high among 
great authors. 

Mr. Freeman, in an article on Mr. Bryce's book, is 
nearer to the true conception. He writes as follows: 

* The theory of the ISIediaeval Empire is that of an uni- 
versal Christian Monarchv. The Roman Empire and the 
Catholic Church are two aspects of one Society.' ... * At 
the head of this Societ3^,.in its temporal character as an Em- 
pire, stands the temporal chief of Christendom, the Roman 
Caesar; at its head, in its spiritual character as a Church, 
stands the spiritual chief of Christendom, the Roman Pontiff, 
Caesar and Pontiff alike rule by Divine right.' ^ 

Now here are two things to be noted. First, that 
the Emperor holds an office of human creation ; the 
Pontiff an office of Divine creation. Secondly, that the 
office of Divine creation is for a higher end than the 
office which is of human origin. The former is for the 
eternal, the latter for the earthly happiness of man. 

But, as I have said before, the office of Divine cre- 

^ The Holy Roman Empire, p. loS. (Macmillan, 1871.) 

^ Freeman's Historical Essays, pp. 136-137. (Macmillan, 1872.) 



Spirittcal and Civil Powers. 69 

ation, ordained to guide men to an eternal end, is 
higher than the office of human origin, directed to an 
earthly and temporal end ; and in this the perfect 
unity and subordination of the whole is constituted 
and preserved. 

Nevertheless, both Mr. Bryce and Mr. Freeman 
bring out clearly what Boniface means when he says 
that the two swords are in Ecclesia, in the Church, and 
in potestate Ecclesice^ in the pozver of the Church. 

To this I may add the following passage from the 
late Cardinal Tarquini,^ who states the whole subject 
with great precision : — 

^ The Civil Society of Catholics is distinguished from 
others by this — that it consists of the same assemblage of men 
as the Church of Christ, that is, the Catholic Church, consists 
of: so that it in no way constitutes a real body diverse and 
separate from the Church ; but both (societies) together have 
the character of a twofold federative association and obliga- 
tion inhering in the same multitude of men, whereby the 
Civil Society under the government of the Civil Magistrate 
exerts its powers to secure the temporal happiness of men, and, 
under the government of the Church, to secure eternal life; 
and in such wise that eternal life be acknowledged to be the 
last and supreme end to which temporal happiness and the 
whole temporal life is subordinate ; because if any man do not 
acknowledge this, he neither belongs to the Catholic Church, 
nor may call himself Catholic. Such, then, is the true notion 
of the Civil Society of Catholics. It is a society of men wlio 
so pursue the happiness of this life as thereby to show that it 
ought to be subordinate to the attainment of eternal happiness, 

* Tarquini, Juris Eccl. Publicl Institittioncs, p. 56. (Rome, 1S73.) 



70 Relations of the 

which they believe can be attained alone under the direction of 
the Catholic Church.* 

We have here the full and genuine doctrine of the 
Unain Sanctavi — the one body, the two swords, the 
subordination of the material to the spiritual sword, 
the indirect power of the spiritual over the temporal 
whensoever it deviates from the eternal end. 

Dr. Dollinger*s interpretation, then, is strictly cor- 
rect — namely, ^ It was therefore,* he says, * the indirect 
power of the Church over the temporal power of Kings 
which the Pope defended in these Bulls ;* but that 
power of the Pope is itself Spiritual. 

VII. From this doctrine Cardinal Tarquini draws 
the following conclusions : 

1. In things temporal, and in respect to the tempo- 
ral end (of Government), the Church has no 
power in Civil society. 

The proof of this proposition is that all things 
merely temporal are {prceter finem Ecclesid) beside, or 
outside of, the end of the Church. It is a general rule 
that no society has power in those things which are out 
of its own proper end. 

2. In whatsoever things, whether essentially or by 
accident, the spiritual end, that is, the end 
of the Church, is necessarily involved, in those 
things, though they be temporal, the Church 
may by right exert its power, and the Civil State 
ought to yield.^ 

In these two propositions we have the full explana- 

4 

* Tarquini, yuris Eccl, Publici InstiiutiojteSy p. 57. 



spiritual and Civil Powers. 71 

tion of the indirect spiritual power of the Church. I 
give it in Cardinal Tarquini's words — 

< Directly the care of temporal happiness alone belongs to 
the State, but indirectly the office also of protecting morals and 
religion; so, however, that this be done dependently on the 
Church, forasmuch as the Church is a society to which the 
care of religion and morals is directly committed. 

* That which in the Civil Society is indirect and dependent, 
is direct and independent in the Church ; and, on the other 
hand, the end which is proper and direct to the Civil State, 
that is, temporal happiness, falls only indirectly^ or so far as the 
spiritual end requires, under the power of the Church. 

' The result of all this is — 

' I. That the Civil Society, even though every member 

of it be Catholic, is not subject to the Church, but 

plainly independent in temporal things which regard 

its temporal end. 
* 2. That the language of the Fathers, w^hich seems to 

affirm^ an absolute independence of the Civil State, 

is to be brought within this limit.' 

VIIL I will now give a summary of this matter in 
the words of Suarez, and also his comment on the 
terminology used by Canonists and theologians on this 
subject. 

He says that the opinion which gives to the Pontiff 
dirtxt temporal power over all the world is false. 

Next, he sets aside the opinion that the Pontiff has 
this direct temporal power over the Church. 

He then gives as the true opinion that which has 

been affirmed — namely, that the Pontiff has not direct 
W 

* Torquini, Juris Eccl. Publicl Instiiutloius, p. 55 and nofc. 



72 Relations of the 

temporal "^ow^x^ except in those States of which he is 
Temporal Prince ; but that he has a spiritual power in- 
directly over temporal things, in so far as they affect 
the salvation of men or involve sin/ 

One chief cause of the confusion of Regalists and 
our non-Catholic adversaries has been the uncertain 
use of language, and the want of a fixed terminology 
until a certain date. 

The word Temporal was used in two senses. It 
w^as used to signify the power of Civil Rulers in the 
order of nature. And in this sense the Church has 
never claimed it for its head. It was used also to sig- 
nify the spirittial power of the Pontiff when incident 
indirectly upon temporal things. The spiritual power, 
then, had a temporal effect, and took, so to speak, its 
colour and name from that use, remaining always spi- 
ritual as before. 

For instance, we speak of ' the Colonial power ' of 
the Crown, meaning the Imperial power applied to the 
government of the Colonies ; in like manner the Spi- 
ritual power of the Pope, applied indirectly to tem- 
poral things, was {improprie^ improperly called Tem- 
poral, and this itsits loqnendi gave rise to much misin- 
terpretation. 

What I have here stated was the judgment of Bel- 
larmine, who, in his answer to Barclay^ writes as fol- 
lows : — 

* Barclay says that there are two opinions among Catholics 
(on the power of the Pontift). The one, which most Canon-- 
ists follow, affirms that in the Supreme Pontiff, as Vicar of 

^ Suarez. De Legibus, lib. iii. c. vi. 



spiritual and Civil Powers. 73 

Christ, both powers, Spiritual and Temporal, exist : the other, 
which is the common opinion of Theologians, affirms that the 
power of the Supreme Pontiff, as Vicar of Christ, is strictly 
spiritual in itself; but that, nevertheless, he may, by the same, 
dispose temporal things so that they be ordered for spiritual 
ends/ ^ 

Barclay argued that the power of the Pope in tem- 
poral things was a free and open opinion among Catho- 
lics : Bellarmine, in replying, says : — 

* That this power is in the Pope is not opinion but certitude 
among Catholics, though there be many discussions as to 
what and of what quality the power is : that is to say, whether 
it \^Q properly and /;/ itself of a temporal kind, or whether it be 
not rather spiritual^ but by a certain necessary consequence, 
and in order to spiritual ends, it dispose of temporal things.' ' 

Bellarmine states his own opinion in these words: 

* Temporal Princes, when they come to the family of Christ, 
lose neither their princely power nor jurisdiction; but they 
become subject to him whom Christ has set over His family, to 
be governed and directed by him in those things which lead to 
eternal life.' ^ 

Now, from these passages it would appear that in 
Bellarmine's judgment the opinions of the Canonists 
and the Theologians practically came to one and the 
same thing, though their language was different. By 
Temporal Power some earlier Canonists may perhaps 
have intended a power temporal in itself; but the later 
Canonists did not intend more than a Spiritual power 

^ Bellarmine, De Pctcsiatc. Suravii rcuiifLcls, cnp. i. p. 848 A, 
Cologne, 161 7. 

'^ Jhiif, cap. iii. p. 852 h. ' Ibid. cap. iii. p. 85S a. 



74 Relations of the 

over temporal things : which the Theologians also 
asserted. But this use of the word temporal ^^^x^t^ to 
imply that the quality of the power was not spiritual^ 
as the Theologians asserted. This ambiguity is the 
source of the misunderstandings which we daily read 
in attacks upon the Catholic Church. I can the ftiore 
readily believe the good faith of those who so miscon- 
ceive it, because I can remember that I was misled by 
the same mistake for many years. For instance, the 
Canonists affirm that the whole world is the territory 
of the YonWii {Terr itorium Pontificis), But they do so 
in answering the objection, that where the Pontiff acts 
spiritually in the territory of any temporal Prince, he is 
invading the territory of another. The meaning is 
evident : namely, that the Pontiff has universal jurisdic- 
tion over the whole world. But this does not say that 
his jurisdiction is temporal. It affirms only that it 
runs into all the world. It merely affirms that it is 
universal : and the same writers assert that in itself it 
is only Spiritual.^ 

We have been told that Bellarmine's book was put 
upon the Index. But, after a judicial examination, it 
was removed by order of the Holy See, and its perfect 
soundness acknowledged. 

Suarez lays down precisely the same doctrine as 
Bellarmine. He says : — 

' Those authors who teach absolutely that the Pope has 
Supreme Power, and that temporal^ in the whole world, mean 
this, " that the Pontiff, in virtue of his Spiritual Power and 
jurisdiction, is superior to Kings and temporal Princes, so as to 



^ Tarquini, p. 46. 



d 



spiritual and Civil Powers. 75 

direct them in the use of their temporal Povvef ia oidcr to 
Spiritual ^\\^^,^' ' 

He then goes on : — 

* For though they sometimes speak indistinctly, and without 
sufficient clearness, or even {i^nproprie) incorrectly — because 
the power of the Pope is not temporal but spiritual, which con- 
tains under itself things temporal, and is exercised about them 
indirectly^ that is, for the sake of Spiritual things — nevertheless 
they often make this sense clear, and lay dovvn their distinc- 
tions either expressly or virtually; for they affirm that the 
Pontiff can do some things indirectly^ but deny that he can do 
them directly' ^ 

But if the Pope had temporal power properly so 
called, he could do all things directly. This negative 
proves that the power of which they spoke was only 
Spiritual. 

Suarez further says : — 

< Subjection is of two kinds — direct and indirect. Subjection 
is called direct when it is within the end and limits of the same 
power; it is called indirect when it springs from direction to 
a higher end, which belongs to a higher and more excellent 
power. The proper Civil Power in itself is direcdy ordained 
for the fitting state and temporal happiness of the human com- 
monwealth in time of this present life; and therefore the 
power itself is called temporal. The Civil Power, therefore, is 
then called supreme in its own order when within the same, 
and in respect to its end, the ultimate resolution (of power) is 
made \\;ithin its own sphere.' ... * The chief ruler is, 
then, subordinate to no superior in order to the same end of 

^ Suarcz, Defcnsio Fidci CatJicliccr^ torn. xxiv. lib. iii. c. \xii. 2nd 
ed. Paris, 1869. 



76 Relations of the 

Civil Government, But, as temporal and civil happiness are 
related to that which is spiritual and eternal, it may happen 
that the matter of Civil Government must be otherwise ordered 
and directed, in order to spiritual welfare, than the Civil policy 
alone seems to require. And then, though the temporal Prince 
and his power do not directly depend in their acts upon any 
other power in the same (/. e, the temporal) order, which also 
regards the same end only, nevertheless it may happen that it 
needs to be directed, helped, and corrected in the matter of its 
government by a superior power, which governs men in order 
to a more excellent and eternal end; and then this dependence 
is called indirect, because that higher power is not exercised in 
respect to temporal things [perse) of its own nature, nor for its 
own sake, but indirectly, and for another end.' ^ 

It will be seen here : — 

1. That the superior po^ver cannot be temporal, 
or its jurisdiction would be direct. 

2. That, if temporal, it would not be of a higher y 
but of the same order, 

3. That, therefore, the claim of indirect power 
is an express • exclusion of temporal power, 
properly so called, from the spiritual supre- 
macy of the Head of the Church. 

Suarez states, but- rejects, the opinion of certain 
early Canonists and Jurists who taught that the power 
of the Pontiff over any temporal thing was also tem- 
poral in itself. He then states and proves that this in- 
direct power is Spiritual only. After speaking of the 
power of the Keys, he says : — 

' In no other place did Christ imply that He gave to Peter 
^ Suarez, Defensio Fidel, ^c. lib. iii. cap. v. sect. 2, 



Spirii2uil ajid Civil Powe^^s. 77 

or to the Church temporal dominion, or n, proper and direct 
royalty; nor does Ecclesiastical tradition show this, but rather 
the reverse.' ^ 

With these authorities before us, there can be little 
difficulty in explaining the texts usually quoted by ad- 
versaries, who desire to fasten on the Uiiam Sanctccjn 
and upon the Catholic Church a claim to temporal 
power, that is, temporal in its root and in itself. 

The passages usually quoted from Pope Nicholas, 
St. Bernard, St. Thomas, Alvarez, Hugo of St. Victor, 
St. Bonaventura, Durandus, and others, are fully dis- 
cussed and proved by Bellarmine to affirm no more 
than Spiritual power ; and that indirectly over tempo- 
ral matters, when they involve the Spiritual end of the 
Church.^ 

IX. 1 hope sufficiently to prove hereafter what I 
asserted — namely, that though a supreme spiritual 
authority be inherent in the Divine constitution and 
commission of the Church, its exercise in the world 
depends on certain moral and material conditions, by 
which alone its exercise is rendered possible or just. 
This shall be shown by treating the subjects raised by 
the ^ Expostulation ;" namely, the deposing power, and 
the use of political force or penal legislation in matters 
of religion. I hope, and I believe, that I am able to 
show that the moral condition of the Christian world 
made justifiable in other ages that which would be un- 

^ Suarcz, Dcfensio Fidci, ^c. lib. iii. cap. v. sect. 14. 
" This may be seen in his Controversia dc Summo Po):tifiCL\ cap. v.; 
and in Bianclii's work, Delia Fofvsta, torn. i. p. 91, lib. i. ch. x. xi. 
^ Expostulatiou^ p. 26. 



78 Relatione, of the 

justifiable in this ; and that the attempt to raise pre- 
judice, suspicion, and hostiUty against the Catholic 
Church at this day and in England by these topics, is 
an act essentially unjust; from which a real science of 
history ought to have preserved Mr. Gladstone. I must 
repeat here again that between the Vatican Council 
and these subjects there is no more relation than be- 
tween jurisprudence and the equinox. Some fifteen 
Councils of the Church, of which two are General, 
have indeed recognised and acted upon the su- 
premacy of the Spiritual authority of the Church 
over temporal things ; but the Infallibility of 
the Roman Pontiff is one thing, his supreme 
judicial authority is another. And the Defini- 
tion of Infallibility by the Vatican Council has in no 
way, by so much as a jot or tittle,^ changed or affected 
that which was infallibly fixed and declared before. 
But, as I v/ill go on to show, even infallible laws cease 
to apply when the subject matter is wanting, and the 
necessary moral conditions are passed away. 

I must acknowledge, therefore, that the following 
words fill me with surprise. Speaking of Dr. Doyle 
and others, he says : — 

' Answers in abundance were obtained, tending to show 
that the doctrines of deposition and persecution, of keeping 
no faith with heretics, and of universal dominion, were obso- 
lete beyond revival.' ^ 

This passage implicitly afi'irms what I hope expli- 
citly to prove. How can laws become obsolete^ but by 
the cessation of the moral conditions which require or 

* Expostulation, P- 26. 



■ SpiriHi^aL and Civil Powers. 79 

justify their exercise? How can laws, the exercise of 
which is required by the permanent presence of the 
same moral conditions which called them into exist- 
ence, become obsolete ? I pass over the * no faith with 
heretics,' which is an example of the injustice which 
pervades the Pamphlet, I should have thought it im- 
possible for Mr. Gladstone not to knov/ the true mean- 
ing of this controversial distortion : but I am willing 
to believe that he did not know it ; for if he had, it 
would have been impossible for such as he is to 
write it. 

The moral principles on which the exercise of 
supreme powers and rights was justifiable in the age 
of Boniface VIII. exist no longer in the nineteenth 
century in England. Let no one cynically pretend 
that this is to give up or to explain away. I read the 
other day these words : — 

* The Pope has sent forth his prohibitions and his anathe- 
mas to the world, and the world has disregarded them. The 
faithful receive them with conventional respect, and then hasten 
to assure their Protestant friends that Papal edicts can make 
no possible difference in the conduct of any human being.* * 

Nothing can be less true. The first principles of 
morals forbid the exercise of the supreme judicial 
power of the Church on such a civil order as that of 
England. When it was de facto subject to the Church, 
England had by its own free will accepted the laws of 
Christendom. It can never be again subject to such 
laws except on the same condition — namely, by its 

* Times, Wednesday, December 30, 1874, in leading article on the 
Pope. 



8o Relations of the 

own free will. Till then the highest laws of morality 
render the exercises of such Pontifical acts in England 
impossible. 

Mr. Gladstone has called on Pius IX. to repudiate 
such powers.^ But Pius IX. cannot repudiate powers 
which his predecessors justly exercised, without im- 
plying that their actions were unjust. He need 
not repudiate them for himself, for the exercise 
of them is impossible, and, if physically possible, 
would be morally impossible, as repugnant to all 
equity, and, under correction, I will say to natural jus- 
tice. The infallible witness for justice, and equity, 
and charity among men, cannot violate these laws 
wdiich unerringly govern his office. 

X. The command of our Lord to the Apostles ; 
' Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to 
every creature : he that believeth and is baptised shall 
be saved, but he that believeth not shall be con- 
demned ' " — clearly invests the Church with the author- 
ity to baptise every creature. But the exercise of this 
right w^as suspended upon a moral condition. It con- 
veyed no right to baptise any man against his will ; 
nor without an act of faith on his part. But an 
act of faith is a spontaneous and voluntary act of 
submission, both of intellect and will, to the truth, and 
to the teacher wdio delivers it. The absolute and uni- 
versal authority therefore of the Church to baptise de- 
pends upon the free and voluntary act of those who 
believe, and, through their own spontaneous submis- 
sion, are willing to be baptised. 

^ ExposUdatic7i, p. 26. "^ * St. Mark xvi. 15, 16. 



spiritual and Civil Powers^ 8 1 

The Church so regards the moral conditions on 
which its acts depend, that as a rule it v/ill not even 
suffer an infant to be baptised unless at least one of the 
parents consents. 

In like manner the power of absolution, which has 
no limit of time or of subject, can be exercised only 
upon those who are willing. Confession and contrition, 
both voluntary acts of the penitent, are absolutely 
necessary to the exercise of the power of the Keys. 

This principle will solve many questions in respect 
to the Spiritual authority of the Church over the Civil 
State. 

First, it shows that, until a Christian world and 
Christian Rulers existed, there was no subject for the 
exercise of this spiritual authority of judgment and 
correction. Those who amuse themselves by asking 
why St. Peter did not depose Nero, will do well to find 
out whether people are laughing with them or at them. 
Such questions are useful. They compendiously show 
that the questioner does not understand the first prin- 
ciples of his subject. If he will find out why St. Pe- 
ter neither baptised nor absolved Nero, he will have 
found out why he did not depose him. Until a Chris- 
tian world existed there was no apta inaici'ia for the 
supreme judicial pov/er of the Church in temporal 
things. Therefore St. Paul laid down as a rule of law 
tliat he had nothing to do in judging those that were 
without the unity of the Church. 

But when a Christian world came into existence, 
the Civil society of man became subject to the Spiritual 
direction of the Church. So long, however, as indivi- 
duals only subjcctctl themselves, one b}' one, to its 



82 Relations of the 

authority, the conditions necessary for the exercise of 
its office were not fully present. The Church guided 
men, one by one, to their eternal end ; but as yet the 
collective society of nations was not subject to its guid- 
ance. It is only when nations and kingdoms become 
socially subject to the supreme doctrinal and judicial 
authority of the Church that the conditions of its exer- 
cise are verified. When the senate and people of the 
Roman Empire were only half Christian, the Church 
still refrained from acts which w^ould have affected the 
whole body of the State. When the whole had become 
Christian, the whole became subject to the Divine Law, 
of which the Roman Pontiff was the supreme expositor 
and executive. 

It would be endless to state examples in detail. I 
v/ill take, therefore, only one in which the indirect spi- 
ritual power of the Church over the temporal State is 
abundantly shown. Take, for instance, the whole sub- 
ject of Christian Matrimony: the introduction of the 
Christian law of the unity and indissolubility and sacra- 
mental character of marriage ; the tables of consanguin- 
ity and of affinity ; the jurisdiction of the Church over 
matrimonial cases. This action of the Pontifical law 
upon the Imperial law, and the gradual conformity of 
the Empire to the Church, exhibits in a clear and com- 
plete way what is the power claimed by the Church 
over the temporal laws of Princes. 

The Council of Trent reserves matrimonial causes to 
the Ecclesiastical Tribunals ; and in the Syllabus the 
proposition is condemned that they belong to the Civil 
jurisdiction,^ 

^ Sess. xxiv. De Ref. can xii. 



Spirihtal and Civil Poivers, 83 

In like manner, in prohibiting duels, the Council 
declares temporal penalties against not only the princi- 
pals, but those also who are guilty of permitting them.* 

In like manner, again, the Christian law of faith and 
morals passed into the public law of Christendom. 
Then arose the Christian jurisprudence, in which the 
Roman Pontiff was recognized as the supreme Judge 
of Princes and of People, with a twofold coercion : 
spiritual by his own authority, and temporal by the 
secular arm. These two acted as one. Excommuni- 
cation and deposition were so united in the juris- 
prudence of Christendom, that he who pronounced 
the sentence of excommunication pronounced also 
the sentence of deposition ; as before the repeal of 
our Test Acts, if a member of the Church of England 
became Catholic, or even Nonconformist, he was ip- 
so facto incapable of sitting in Parliament or holding 
office of State. And by the first of William III. the 
heir to the Crown, if he become Catholic, or marry a 
Catholic, ipso facto forfeits the succession. Nothing 
is more certain upon the face of history, and no one 
has proved more abundantly than Dr. Dollinger, that 
in every case of deposition, as of Philip le Bel, Plenry 
IV. of Germany, Frederic IL, and the like, the sentence 
of the Electors, Princes, States, and people, and the 
public opinion and voice of nations, had ah'eady pro- 
nounced sentence of rejection upon those tyrants be- 
fore the Pontiffs pronounced the sentence of excommu- 
nication and deposition. It was only by the faith and 
free will of nations that they became socially subject to 

* Sess. XXV. cap. xix. 



$4 Relations of the 

this jurisprirdence; it was by their free will that it was 
maintained in vigour; and it was in conformity with 
their free will that it was exercised by the Pontiffs. 
Their free sentence preceded the Pontifical sentence. 
It was at their prayer, and in their behalf, that it was 
pronounced. The moral condition of spontaneous ac- 
ceptance, and the material conditions of execution, 
were alike present, rendering these supreme Pontifical 
acts legitimate, right, lawful, wise, and salutary. 

XI. And here I shall be met with the answer : * You 
justify, then, the deposition of princes, and therefore 
you hold that the Pope may depose Queen Victoria.' 
Such, I am sorry to say, is the argument of the * Ex- 
postulation ;' for if it be .not, why was it implied ? I 
altogether deny the .argument, or inference, or call it 
what you will. I affirm that the deposition of Henry 
IV. and Frederic II. of Germany were legitimate, right, 
and lawful ; and I affirm that a deposition of Queen 
Victoria would not be legitimate, nor right, nor lawful, 
because the moral conditions which were present to jus- 
tify the deposition of the Emperors of Germany are 
absent in the case of Queen Victoria ; and therefore 
such an act could not be done. 

This is not a mere personal opinion of my own, or 
even a mere opinion of theologians. What I have 
affirmed has been declared by the authority of Pius VI. 
In a letter from the Congregation of Cardinals of the 
College of Propaganda, by order of His Ploliness Pius 
VI., addressed to the Roman Catholic Archbishops of 
Ireland, dated Rome, June 23, 1791, we read as fol- 
lows :— 



Spirihial a7id Civil Powers. C5 

^ In this controversy a most accurate discrimination shoul'.I 
be made between the genuine rights of the Apostohcal See and 
those that are imputed to it by innovators of this age for the 
purpose of calumniating. The See of Rome never taught that 
fliith is not to be kept with the heterodox — that an oath to 
kings separated from Cathohc communion can be violated — 
that it is lawful for the Bishops of Rome to invade their tem- 
poral rights and dominions. We, too, consider an attempt or 
design against the Hfe of kings and princes, even under the 
pretext of religion, as a horrid and detestable crime/ 

I may add that this passage was not unknown to 
Dr. Dollinger, who quotes it at p. 51 in his work on 
'The Church and the Churches.* 

But lest any one should reply that this was said 
when Catholics were under penal laws, and with a 
view to blinding the English Government, I will add 
that no one has more frankly and forcibly expressed 
this than Pius IX., in the very text of which Mr. 
Gladstone -has quoted a part. The Holy Father, on 
July 20, 1871, thus addressed a Literary Society in 
Rome : — 

^ In the variety of subjects v/hich will present themselves 
to you, one appears to me of great importance at this time ; 
and that is, to defeat the endeavours which are now directed 
to falsify the idea of the Infallibility of the Pope. Among all 
other errors, that is malicious above all which would attribute 
(to the Infallibihty of the Pope) the right of deposing sove- 
reigns, and of absolving people from the obligation of allegi- 
ance. 

* This right, without doubt, 1ms been exercised by the 
Supreme Pontiffs from time to time in extreme cases, but it has 
nothing to do with the Pontifical Infallibility ; neither docr> i: 



86 Relatlo7is of the 

flow from the Infaliibility, but from the authoVity of the 
Pontiff. 

* Moreover, the exercise of this right in those ages of faith 
which respected in the Pope that which he is, that is to say, 
the Supreme Judge of Christendom, and recognised the benefit 
of his tribunal in the great contentions of peoples and of so^ 
verei'gns, was freely extended (by aid, as was just, of public 
jurisprudence, and the common consent of nations) to the 
gravest interests of States and of their rulers/ 

So far Mr. Gladstone quoted from what was before 
him. Unfortunately, he appears not to have known 
what followed. Pius IX. w^ent on to say : — 

* But altogether different are the conditions of the present 
time from the conditions (of those ages) ; and malice alone can 
confound things so diverse, that is to say, the infalHble judg- 
ment in respect to truths of Divine Revelation with the right 
which the Popes exercised in virtue of their authority when the 
common good demanded it. They know better than we, and 
everybody can discern the reason why such an absurd confu- 
sion of ideas is stirred up at this time, and why hypothetical cases 
are paraded of which no man thi?iks. It is because every pre- 
text, even the most frivolous and furthest from the truth, is 
eagerly caught at, provided it be of a kind to give us annoy- 
ance, and to excite civil rulers against the Church. 

* Some would have me interpret and explain even more 
fully the Definition of the Council. 

^ I will not do it. It is clear in itself, and has no need of 
other comments and explanations. Whosoever reads that De- 
cree with a dispassionate mind has its true sense easily and 
obviously before him.* ^ 



^ Discarsl di Pio Nona, July 20, 187 1, -p. 203, Rome, 1S72. 



I 



spiritual and Civil Powers. 87 

Now, the Holy Father in these words has abun- 
dantly shown two things: first, that they who connect 
InfalUbihty with the Deposing Power are talking of 
what they do not understand ; and, secondly, that the 
moral conditions which justified and demanded the 
deposition of tyrannical Princes, when the mediseval 
world was both Christian and Catholic, have abso- 
lutely ceased to exist, now that the world has 
ceased to be Catholic, and has ceased to be even Chris- 
tian. It has v/ithdrawn itself socially as a whole, 
and in the public life of nations, from the unity 
and the jurisdiction of the Christian Church. 
In this it differs altogether from the mediaeval world. 
And it differs also from the ancient world. For, the 
ancient world had never yet believed the faith ; the 
modern world has believed, but fallen from its faith. 
The ancient world was without the unity of the Chris- 
tian Church de facto et de jjire. The modern world 
is without de facto ; and this has changed all the moral 
conditions of the subject.- The Church never, indeed, 
loses its jurisdiction in radice over the baptised, because 
the character of baptism is indelible ; but unless the 
moral conditions justifying its exercise be present, it 
never puts it forth. As Mr. Gladstone has cited the 
example of Queen Elizabeth, implying that he sees no 
difference between Queen Elizabeth and Queen Vic- 
toria, I will add that Queen Elizabeth was baptised a 
Catholic ; that she was crov/ned as a Catholic ; that she 
received Holy Communion in the High Mass of her 
consecration as a Catholic; that she was both de jure 
and de facto a subject of the Catholic Church ; that the 
majority of the people of Enj.^land were still Catholic. 



88 Relations of the ' 

What one of all these conditions is present in the case 
which I refuse to put in parallel? The English Mo- 
narchy has been withdrawn for three centuries from the 
Catholic Church ; the English people are wholly sepa- 
rate ; the Legislation of England has effaced every trace 
of the jurisprudence which rendered the Pontifical acts 
of St. Gregory VII. and Innocent IV. legitimate, just, 
and right. The public laws of England explicitly re- 
ject and exclude the first principles of that ancient 
Christian and Catholic jurisprudence. Not only is 
every moral condition which could justify such an act 
absent, but every moral condition which would render 
such an act unjustifiable, as it would seem to me, is 
present.^ This is a treatment of history which is not 
scientific, but shallow ; and a dangerous use of inflam- 
mator}^ rhetoric, when every calm dictate of prudence 
and of justice ought to forbid its indulgence. ' The 
historic spirit,'^ com.mended in the * Expostulation,' 
would have led to such a treatm^ent of this question as 
Mr. Freeman wisely recommends. 

'The cause of all this diversity and controversy — a diversity 
and controversy most fatal to historic truth — is to be traced to 
the unhappy mistake of looking at the men of the twelfth cen- 
tury with the eyes of the nineteenth ; and still more of hoping 
to extract something from the events of the twelfth century to 
do service in the controversies of the nineteenth.' ^ 

XII. For the same reasons I deplore the haste, I 
must say the passion, v/hich carried away so large a 

* Appendix B. ^ Expostulation, p. 14. 

^ Freeman's Historical Essays, * St, Thomas of Canterbury^ and his 
Biographers,' p. 80. 



spiritual and Civil Powers. 89 

mind to affirm or to imply that the Church at this day 
would, if she could, use torture, and force and coercion, 
in matters of religious belief. I am well aware that 
mxen of a mind and calibre as far removed from Mr. 
Gladstone as almost to constitute a different species, 
have at times endeavoured to raise suspicion and ani- 
mosity against Catholics, by affirming that if they 
became the majority in this country — a danger cer- 
tainly not proximate — they would use their power to 
compel men to conform to the Catholic faith. In the 
year 1830 the Catholics of Belgium were in a vast 
majority, but they did not use their political power 
to constrain the faith or conscience of any man. The 
* Four Liberties ' of Belgium were the work of Catho- 
lics. This is the most recent example of what Catho- 
lics would do if they were in possession of power. But 
there is one more ancient and more homely for us 
Englishmen. It is found at a date when the old tra- 
ditions of the Catholic Church were still vigorous in the 
minds of men. It will therefore show that in this at 
least we owe nothing to modern progress, nor to the 
indifference of Liberalism. If the modern spirit had 
any share in producing the Constitution in Belgium, it 
certainly had no share in producing the Constitution 
of Maryland. Lord Baltimore, who had been Secre- 
tary of State under James I., in 1633, emigrated to the 
American Plantations, where, through Lord Strafford's 
influence, he had obtained a grant of land. lie was 
iiccompanicd by men of all minds, who agreed chiefly 
in the one desire to leave bcliind them the miserable 
religious conflicts which tlien tormented F.npjand. 
They named their new country Marx'land, and there 



90 Relations of the 

they settled. The oath of the Governor was in these 
terms : ' I will not, by myself or any other, directly or 
indirectly, molest any person professing to believe in 
Jesus Christ, for or fn respect of religion/ Lord 
Baltimore invited the Puritans of Massachusetts, who, 
like himself, had renounced their country for conscience' 
sake, to come into Maryland. In 1649, when active 
persecution had sprung up again in England, the 
Council of Maryland, on the 2ist of April, passed this 
Statute : ' And whereas the forcing of the conscience 
in matters of religion hath frequently fallen out to be 
of dangerous consequence in the Commonwealth where 
it has been practised, and for the more quiet and 
peaceable government of the Province, and the better 
to preserve mutual love and amity am.ong the inhabi- 
tants, no person within the Province professing to be- 
lieve in Jesus Christ shall be anyways troubled, 
molested, or discountenanced for his or her religion, or 
in the free exercise thereof/ ^ The Episcopalians and 
Protestants fled from Virginia into Maryland. Such 
was the Commonwealth founded by a Catholic upon 
the broad moral law I have here laid down — that faith 
is an act of the will, and that to force men to profess 
what they do not believe is contrary to the law of 
God, and that to generate faith by force is morally 
impossible. It was by conviction of the reason and by 
persuasion of the will that the world-wide unity of 
faith and communion were slowly built up among the 
nations. When once shattered, nothing but conviction 
and persuasion can restore it. Lord Baltimore was sur- 

* Bancroft's Hisfory of the United Siates, vol. i. pp. 233, 235, 255, etc. 



spiritual and Civil Powcj^s. '91 

rounded by a multitude scattered by the great wreck 
of the Tudor persecutions. He knew that God alone 
could build them up again into unity ; but that the 
equity of charity might enable them to protect and to 
help each other, and to promote the common weal. 

I cannot refrain from continuing the histor}^ The 
Puritan Commonwealth in England brought on a Puri- 
tan revolution in Maryland. They acknowledged Crom- 
well, and disfranchised the whole Catholic population. 
^'Liberty of conscience ' w^as declared, but to the exclu- 
sion of * Popery, Prelacy, and licentiousness of opinion.* 
Penal laws came of course. Quakers in Massachusetts, for 
the first offence, lost one ear ; for the second, the other ; 
for the third, had their tongue seared 'Avith a red-hot 
iron. Women were w^hipped, and men Avere hanged, for 
religion. If Catholics were in power to-morrow in 
England, not a penal law would be pr'oposed, nor the 
shadow of constraint be put upon the faith of any man. 
We would that all men fully believed the truth ; but 
a forced faith is a hypocrisy, hateful to God and man. 
If Catholics were in power to-morrow, not only would 
there be no penal laws of constraint, but no penal laws 
of privation. If the Ionian Islands had elected, some 
years ago, to attach themselves to the Sovereignty of 
Pius IX., the status of the Greek Church separate from 
Catholic Unity would have been tolerated and respect- 
ed. Their Churches, their public worship, their Clergy, 
and their religious rites would have been left free as 
before. They were found in possession, which was con- 
firmed by the tradition of centuries ; they had acquired 
Civil rights, which enter into the laws of political jus- 



92 Relatio7is of the 

tice, and as such would have been protected from all 
molestation/ 

I have drawn this out, because a question absolutely 
chimerical has been raised to disturb the confidence of 
the English people in their Catholic fellow-countrymen. 
And I have given the reason and the principle upon 
which, if the Catholics were to-morrow the * Im- 
perial race ' in these Kingdoms, they would not 
use political power to molest the divided and he- 
reditary religious state of our people. We should 
not shut one of their Churches, or Colleges, 
or Schools. They would have the same liberties we 
enjoy as a minority. I hope the Nonconformists of 
England are prepared to say the same. As vre are in 
days Avhen some are ^ invited/ and some are ' expected,* 
and some are ^ required ' to speak out,*I will ask my 
fellow-countrymen of all religious kinds to be as frank 
as I am. 

XIII. I have now given, I hope, sufficient evidence 
to prove the assertion made in the second letter quoted 
at the outset of these pages ; namely : — 

'That the relations of the Catholic Church to the Civil 
Powers have been fixed immutably from the beginning, because 

^ Our older writers, such as Bellarmine and Suarez, when treating 
of this subject, had before their eyes a generation of men who all had 
been in the unity of the faith. Their separation therefore was formal 
and wilful. Their separation from the unity of the Church did not 
release the conscience from its jurisdiction. But if Bellarmine and 
Suarez were living at this day, they would have to treat of a question 
differing in all its moral conditions. What I have here laid down is 
founded upon the principles they taught, applied to our times. Car- 
dinal Tarquini, in treating the same matter, has dealt with it as it has 
been treated here. — Juris Eccl. Fuhl, Ijistitutioncs, p. 78. 



J 



Spirihtal and Civil Powers, 93 

they arise out of the Divine constitution of the Church, and 
out of the civil society of the natural order.' 

And we have also seen how far fr.om the truth are the 
confident assertions put forward lately, that the Church 
ascribes to its head Supreme Temporal as well as Su- 
preme Spiritual Power/ 

Further, we have seen with what strange want of 
reflection and of depth the Pontifical acts of the old 
Catholic world are transferred per saltiun to a world 
which has ceased, in its public life and laws, to be 
Catholic, I may almost say, to be even Christian. 

Finally, I have shown, I hope, what are the rela- 
tions of the Church to the Civil Powers of the world; 
and I have given evidence to prove that those relations 
have been fixed from the beginning by reason of the 
Divine constitution of the Church, and have been de- 
clared by Councils, not only before the Council of the 
Vatican, but before the Council of Trent; and, there- 
fore, that to charge upon the Vatican Council a change 
in these relations is not only an assertion without proof, 
but an assertion contrary to historical fact. 

^ Expostulation^ dfc, p. 27. 



94 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 

CHAPTER III. 

AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 

Mr. Gladstone says :— 

' It is the peculiarity of Roman theology that, by thrusting 
itself into the temporal domain, it naturally, and even neces- 
sarily, comes to be a frequent theme of poHtical discussion. 
To quiet-minded Roman Catholics it must be a subject of infi- 
nite annoyance that their rehgion is on this ground more 
than any other the subject of criticism; more than any 
other the occasion of conflicts with the State and of civil 
disquietude. I feel sincerely how much hardship their case 
entails, but this hardship is brought upon thqm altogether by 
the conduct of the authorides of their own Church.' ^ 

His pamphlet from beginning to end bristles with 
the same accusations against the Catholic Church. His 
whole argument might be entitled, * Reasons to show 
that in all Conflicts the Christian Church is always in 
the wrong, and the Civil State always in the right ;' or, 
* On the outrageous Claims ' ^ and * Exorbitances of 
Papal Assumptions,^ contrasted with the Innocence and 
Infallibility of Civil States.' This seems to me to be 
history read upside down ; and not history only, but 
also Christianity. I can hardly persuade myself that 
^Ir. Gladstone would contend that even in the Consti- 
tutions of Clarendon ' St. Thomas of Canterbury was 

* Vatican Decrees, p. 9. "^ Ibid, p. 1 1. ^ Ibid. p. 25. 

* Mr. Gladstone says, upon what evidence I do not know, * The 
Constitutions of Clarendon, cursed from the Papal- Throne, were the 



Aggressions of the Civil Power. 95 

the aggressor, and Henry II. was within the law; or 
that either the Pope or Archbishop Langton began the 
conflict with the * Papal minion John ;' or, again, that 
in the question of Investitures and Ecclesiastical 
Simony, the Emperors of Germany were on the side 
of law and justice, and St. Gregory VII. and Innocent 
III. were aggressors. And yet all this is necessary to his 
argument. If he is not prepared to maintain this, the 
whole foundation is gone. But I do not know how any 
man who believes in the Divine office of the Christian 
Church can maintain such a thesis. And I have always 
believed that Mr. Gladstone does so believe the Chris- 
tian Church to have a Divine office, which, v/ithin 
some limit at least, is independent of all human autho- 
rity. 

But as the "contention before us is not of the past 
so much as of the present, I will come to the facts of 
the days in which we live. 

My third proposition, then, is, that any collisions 
now existing between the Catholic Church and the 
States of Europe have been brought on by changes, 
not on the part of the Church, much less of the Vatican 
Council, but on the part of the Civil Powers, and that 
by reason of a systematic conspiracy against the Holy 

work of the English Bishops * St. Thomas himself saj-s that ' Ricliard 
dc Luci and Jocelin de Balliol, the abettors of the Royal tyrann)^ were 
the fabricators of those heretical pravities.'f Herbert of Bosham, who 
was present at Clarendon, says that they were the work of * certain 
nobles (/rc7<:<?r^j) or chief-men of the kingdom.* if The Bishops v/cro 
indeed terrified into submitting to them, but the Constitutions were 
in no sense their work. 

* Vatican Decrees^ pp. 57, 58. t Ef>. St. Thomcr^ torn. iii. p. in, c !. Cilr^, 1545. 

X I'ita St, T/ioffttr^ lom. vli. p. 115, c»J, Gilcj, 



96 Aggressions cf the Civil Power. 

See. No one will ascribe to the Vatican Council the 
Revolution in Italy, the seizure of Rome in 1848, the 
invasion of the Roman State in i860, the attacks of 
Garibaldi against Rome, ending with Mentana. And 
yet there are people who ascribe to the Vatican Council 
the breach at the Porta Pia, and the entry of the Italians 
into Rome. Such reasoners are proof against history, 
chronology, and logic. If anybody will persist in 
saying that the two and twenty years of aggression 
against the Holy See, from 1848 to 1870, Were caused 
by Pius IX., I must address myself to other men. 
That Pius IX. has been in collision w^ith those who 
attacked him is true enough. So is every man who 
defends his own house. Who, I ask, began the fray? 
From . the Siccardi laws down to the laws of the 
Guarantees, who was the aggressor ? But w^here the 
Pope is concerned logic seems to fail even hi reasonable 
men. The other day Prince Von Bismarck told the 
Catholics of the Reichstag that they v/ere accomplices 
of Kulmann, and therefore, as he implied, his assassins. 
Moreover, he affirmed that the war of France against 
Prussia was forced on the French Emperor by the 
Pope and the Jesuits. How providentially, then, 
though altogether fortuitously, no doubt, had Prussia 
been for three years massing its munitions of war and 
putting France in the wTong by intrigues in Spain, and 
fables from Ems. Nevertheless, all these things are 
believed. Prince Von Bismarck has said them. But 
surely they belong to the Arabian Nights. 

Now, I have already shown that, before the Vatican 
Council assembled, there was an opposition systemati- 
cally organised to resist it. It was begun by certain 



Aggressions cf the Civil Power, 97 

Professors at Munich. The Munich Government lent 
itself as an agent to Dr. Bollinger, and endeavoured 
to draw the other Governments of Europe into a com- 
bined attempt to hinder or to intimidate the Council. 
And this was done on the plea that the Council would 
not be free. I well remember that at one time we 
were told in Rome, that if the Council persevered v/ith 
the Definition of tne Infallibility, the French, troops 
would be Vvithdrav/n. That is to say, that the Gari- 
baldians v/ould be let in to m^ake short work of the 
Definition. It was said that the presence of the 
French troops was an undue pressure on the freedom- 
of the Council, and that their departure was essential 
to its true liberty. There was a grim irony amounting 
tG humour in this solicitude for the liberty of the 
CcHancil. 

I will nov/ trace out more fully the history of 
this conspiracy, in order to put beyond question my 
assertion that the plan of attack was prepared before 
the Council met, and that the Falck Laws are a 
deliberate change made by the Civil Power of Prussia. 
,the status of the Catholic Church in Germany being 
still unchanged. 

I will here ask leave to repeat what I stated two 
years ago : 

^ In the year 1069 it vv-as already believed that the Bava- 
rian Government, through Prince Hohenlohe, had begun a 
systematic agitation against the Council. It was known 
that he had addressed a circular note to the European Gov- 
ernments. But the text of that note was not, so far as I 
know, ever made public. I am able now to give the text in 
full. It affords abundant proof of the assertion licrc made, 



98 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 

that a deliberate conspiracy against the Council was planned 
with great artifice and speciousiiess of matter and of lan- 
guage. Moreover, the date of this document shows how 
long before the opening of the Council this opposition was 
commenced. The Council was opened on December 8, 
1869. Prince Hohenlohe's note is dated on the 9th of the 
April preceding, that is to say, about eight months before 
the Council began. It runs as follows : — 

' " Monsieur, — It appears to be certain that the Council 
convoked by His Holiness Pope Pius IX. will meet in the 
month of December next. The number of prelates who will 
attend it from all parts of the world will be much greater 
than at any former Council. This fact alone will help to 
give to its decrees a great authority, such as belongs to an 
(Ecumenical Council. Taking this circumstance into con* 
sideration, it appears to me indispensable for every govern- 
ment to give it their attention, and it is with this view that 
I am about to address to you some observations. 

* "It is not probable that the Council will occupy itself 
only wdth doctrines appertaining to pure theology ; there 
does not exist at this moment any problem of this nature 
which requires a conciliar solution. The only dogmatic 
thesis which Rome would wish to have decided by the 
Council, and which the Jesuits in Italy and Germany are 
now agitating, is the question of the Infallibility of the 
Pope. It is evident that this pretension, elevated into a 
dogma, would go far beyond the purely spiritual sphere, 
and would become a question eminently political, as raising 
the power of the Sovereign Pontiff, even in temporal 
matters, over all the princes and peoples of Christendom. 
This doctrine, therefore, is of such a nature as to arouse 
the attention of all those Governments who rule over Catho- 
lic subjects. 

' " There is a circumstance which increases still more 



Aggressions of the Civil Power. 99 

the gravity of the situation. I learn that among the com- 
missions delegated to prepare matter, which later on is to 
be submitted to the deliberations of the Council, there is 
one which is occupied only on mixed questions, affecting 
equally international law, politics, and canon law. All 
these preparations justify our believing that it is the fixed 
intention of the Holy See, or at least of a party at present 
powerful in Rome? to promulgate through the Council a 
series of decrees upon questions which are rather political 
than ecclesiastical. Add to this that the Civilta Cattolica — 
a periodical conducted by the Jesuits, and bearing an ofh- 
cial character through the brief of the Holy Father — lias 
just demanded that the Council shall transform into conci- 
liar decrees the condemnations of the Syllabus, published 
on December 8, 1864. Now, the articles of this encyclical 
being directed against principles which are the base of 
modern public life, such as'we find it among all civilised 
nations, it follows that Governments are under the necessity 
of asking themselves if it is not their duty to invite 
the serious consideration both of the Bishops who are their 
subjects, and of the future Council, to the sad consequences 
of such a premeditated and systematic overturning of the 
present relations between Church and State. It cannot, 
indeed, be denied that it is a matter of urgency for Govern- 
ments to combine, for the purpose of protesting, cither 
through their agents in Rome, or in some other way, against 
all decisions which the Council may promulgate without 
tlie concurrence of tlie representatives of the secuhir power, 
in questions which are at the same time of a political and 
religious nature. 

* "' I thought that the initiative in so important a matter 
should be taken by one of the great Powers ; but not having 
as yet received any communication on tliis sM])je(M, 1 have 
thouglU it necessary to seek for a mutual understanding 



lOO Aggressions of the Civil Power. 

which will protect our common interests, and that without 
delay, seeing that the interval between this time and the 
meeting of the Council is so short. I therefore desire you 
to submit this matter to the Government to which you are 
accredited, and to ascertain the views and intentions of the 
Court of '^ * * in respect to the course which it deems ad- 
visable to follow. You will submit, for the approbation of 
M. * * *j the question whether it would not be advisable 
to fix beforehand the measures to be taken, if not jointly, at 
least identically, in order to enlighten the Holy See as to 
the attitude which the Governments of the Continent will 
assume in reference to the CEcumenical Council; or whether 
conferences composed of representatives of the States con- 
cerned would not be considered as the best means to bring 
about an understanding between their Governments. 

^ ^' I authorise you to leave a copy of this despatch with 
the Minister for Foreign Affairs at * '^ * , if he desires it ; 
and I wish you to inform me as early as possible of the 
manner in wdiich this communication may be received. 
* " I have the honour, etc., 

^ " HOHENLOHE. 

' '' MimicJu April 9, 1869." ' 

No one could fail to see that this Circular had not 
Prince Hohenlohe for its author. We shall hereafter 
trace it to its legitimate origin. 

* The indiction of the Council was no sooner published 
than the well-known volume called Janus appeared. It 
w^as said to be the work of many hands, and of various 
nations — of two at least. The chief object of its animosity 
was Rome, and its detailed hostility was levelled against 
the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and the Syllabus. 
The book was elaborately acrimonious and extravagantly 



Aggressions of the Civil Power. loi 

insolent against Rome. Its avowed aim was to rouse the 
Civil Governments against the Council. The Sovereign 
Pontiff had, with great wisdom and justice, dealt with the 
Governments of Europe on the ground chosen by them- 
selves. They had renounced the Catholic relations of 
union hitherto subsisting between the Civil and Spiritual 
Powers. Pius IX. took -them at their word. He convened 
the Spiritual Legislature of the Churcli ; he did not invite 
those who have gloried in their separation from it. This, 
again, sharpened the jealousy and suspicion of the Govern- 
ments. At this time came forth certain publications — to 
which I will not more explicitly refer — avowedly intended 
to excite the Civil Powers to active opposition. 

^ About the month of September 1S69, as I have already 
said, a document coiitaining five questions was proposed by 
the Bavarian Government to the Theological Faculty at 
Munich. No one could for a moment doubt by what hand 
those interrogatories also were framed ; they were intended 
to elicit the answer, that the action of the Council, if it 
were to define the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, would 
be irreconcilable not only with Catholic doctrine, but with 
the security of Civil Governments. In due time the answers 
appeared, leaving no doubt that both the questions and 
the replies were inspired by one mind, if not written by one 
and the same hand. 

' We have already seen that Prince Hohenlohe, President 
of the Council and Minister of Foreign Affairs in Bavaria, 
addressed a letter to tlie French and other Catholic Gov- 
ernments, calling on them to interfere and to prevent the 
"fearful dangers" to which the Council would expose tlie 
modern world. Next, the Spanish Minister, Oh:)zau:i, liopod 
that tlie Council would not meet, or at least wouhl^not 
approve, sanction, or ratify tlie Sylhibus, wliich is in con- 
tradiction with modern civilisation." lie then threatened 



I02 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 

the Church with the hostility of a league formed by the 
Governments of France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Bava- 
ria. An Italian infidel then took up the game, and pro- 
posed an Anti-CEcumenical Council to meet at Naples. A 
French infidel was invited, who promised that his soul 
should be present, and said : " It is an efficacious and 
noble idea to assemble a council of ideas to oppose to the 
council of dogmas. I accept it. On the one side is theo- 
cratic obstinacy, on the other the human mind. The 
human mind is a divine mind, its rays on the earth, its star 
is above. ... If I cannot go to Naples, nevertheless I 
shall be there. My soul w^ill be there. I cry, Courage ! 
and I squeeze your hand." The reader will forgive my re- 
peating this trash, which is here inserted only to show how 
the liberals and infidels of Europe rose up at the instigation 
of Dr. DoUinger to meet the coming Council. 

* About the montli of June, in 1869, another despatch 
had been addressed by Prince Hohenlohe to the other 
Governments, inviting them to make common cause against 
the Council. It w^as extensively believed to be inspired by 
Prussia, the policy of which wvas thought to be, to put in 
contrast the liberty accorded to its own Catholic subjects 
in respect of the Council with the pedantic meddling of 
the Bavarian Government. At this time General Mena- 
brea, under the sanie inspiration, addressed a circular to 
his ciplomatic agents, proposing to the Powers to prevent 
the assembling of the Council, on the ground of their not 
having been invited to it. It w^as supposed at that time 
that this policy also was secretly supported by Berlin. A 
joint despatch w\as sent by Prince Hohenlohe and the 
Italian Government to the French Government, urging 
the withdrawal of the French troops from Rome during 
the Council, to insure its freedom of deliberation. 



Aggressions of the Civil Power. 103 

These preparations to oppose the Council were made 
before it had assembled. It met on December 8, 1869. 
In the following January, Dr. Dollinger received the 
freedom of a German city, in reward for his attacks on 
the Holy See. 

^ When the well-known postulatum of the Bishops, asking 
that the definition of the Papal Infallibility should be pro- 
posed to the Council, was made public, Dr. Dollinger openly 
assailed it ; and the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, 
Count Daru, addressed a letter to the Holy See with a view 
to prevent the definition. Rome was at that time full of 
rumours and threats that the protection of the French 
army would be withdrawn. I had personally^an opportu- 
nity of knowing that these threats were not mere rumours. 

^ At the same moment, while France was attacking the 
definition of the Pope's Infallibility, the Protestant Chan- 
cellor of Austria, Count Von Beust, addressed himself to 
the Canons of the Schema published in the Augsburg Ga- 
zette^ which he declared would " provoke deplorable con- 
flicts between the Church and State." Every European 
Government from that time put a pressure more or less upon 
the Council to prevent the definition. 

* The source of this opposition, then, was Munich. The 
chief agent, beyond all doubt, was one who in his earlier 
days had been greatly venerated in Germany and in Eng- 
land. Truth compels me to ascribe to Dr. Dollinger the 
initiative in this deplorable attempt to coerce the Holy See, 
and to overbear the liberty of the Bishops assembled in 
Council. Prince ITohcnlohe is assuredly no theok^gian. 
The documents published by him came from another mind 
and hand. Such was the opposition before and during the 
Council. 

* What I have hitherto said to prove the cons])iracy of 



i04 Aggressions of ike Civil Power. ^ 

certain European Governments, and the intrigues of the 
Old Catholics against the Council, both before the assem- 
bling and during its sessions, would not have been needed 
if the Diary of the Cowicil by Professor Friedrich had 
sooner come into my hands. I have been feeling in the 
dark for proofs which he brings to light by a series of as- 
tounding confessions. I had always believed in the conspi- 
racy ; but I never knew how systematic and how self-confi- 
dent it was. I had always known that the Gnostic vain- 
glory of German scientific historians was its chief instigator ; 
but I never before imagined the stupendous conceit or the 
malevolent pride of its professors. A critique of Professor 
Friedrich's Diary, by some strong German "hand,, has 
appeared lately in one of our journals, and I cannor refrain 
from giving certain passages in final confirraatiion of what I 
have said above. 

* And first as to the Governments. Professor Friedrich 
puts into the mouth of a diplomatist the following v/ords : 
" The means by which the greatest amount of influence 
might be brought to bear on the Council would be ,a deter- 
mined and plain manifestation of the public opinion of 
Europe in favour of the minority. Clearly the Curia could 
not prevent this; and it would add strength and numbers 
to the opposition, by giving it the assurance that, if at the 
last moment it found itself obliged to protest and appeal to 
the nation, the Governments and all intelligent laymen 
would support it. This measure would also secure * weak 
and doubtful Bishops'" {Diary^ p. 184). On the 26th of 
December, 1869, Friedrich wrote, '^ That he was considered 
by many persons to be residing in Rome as the represen- 
tative of an approaching schism, if the majority obtained 
the upper hand in the Council " (p. 41). He says in 
another place : "It would not be the first time in the his- 
tory of the Church that a schism had broken out. Church 



Aggressions of the Civil Power. 105 

history recounts many such, besides that of the Greeks " 
(p. 196). The critic of Professor Friedrich's book writes 
as follows : "The alliance between * German science' and 
diplomacy was not productive of all the results which at 
first had been looked for. Friedrich expresses himself very 
bitterly on this point ; nevertheless he endeavoured all the 
more to excite German science to fresh efforts." Under 
date of the 27th of March (p. 202) he writes : " The Gov- 
ernments are by degrees acting an almost ridiculous part 
towards the Council — first boasts; then embarrassment 
connected with meaningless threats; and at last the confes- 
sion that the right time has passed by, and that the Curia 
has command of the situation. If German science had not 
saved its position, and been able to establish a firm opposi- 
tion in the Council,^even in con trad ictio'n to its own will, 
and kept it alive ; and if our Lord God had not also set 
stupidity and ignorance on the side of the Curia and of the 
majority, the Governments would have been put to shame 
in the sight of the whole world. Prince Hohenlohe, in 
fact, is the only statesman possessed of a deeper insight in 
this question, and by degrees he has come to be looked 
upon as belonging to the minority." ^ 

* Of all the foreign sources from wliich the English news- 
papers drew their inspiration, tlie chief perhaps was the 
Augslmrg Gazette. This paper has many titles to special 
consideration. The infamous matter of Janus first ap- 
peared in it under the form of articles. During tlie Coun- 
cil it had in Rome at least one English contributor. Its 
letters on the Council have been translated into English, 
and published by a Protestant bookseller in a volume by 
Quirinus.* 

A distinguished bisliop of Gcrmnny, one cf tlio rni- 
^ Pref:icc to Vol. III. Sermons on Ecr/cs'a.t.'cj/ Siii'fcw^s, p. x.w. iScc. 



io6 Aggressions of the Civil Power 

nority opposed to the definition, whose cause the.4//^^- 
burg Gazette professed to serve, delivered at the time 
his judgment on Janus, and the letters on the Council. 

' Bishop Von Ketteler of Mainz publicly protested against 
''the systematic dishonesty of the correspondent of the 
Augsburg Gazetted "It is a pure iuTention," he adds, 
''that the Bishops named in that journal declared that Dol- 
Imger represented, as to the substance of the question (of 
Infallibility), the opinions of a majority of the German 
Bishops." And this, he said, " is not an isolated error, but 
part of a system which consists in the daring attempt to 
publish false news, v/ith the object of deceiving the German 
public, according to a plan concerted beforehand." .... 
" It will be necessary one day to expose in all their naked- 
ness and abject mendacity the articles of the Augsburg Ga- 
zette, They will present a formidable and lasting testimony 
to the extent of injustice of which party-men, who affect 
the semblance of superior education, have been guilty 
against the church." Again, at a later date, the Bishop of 
Mainz found it necessary to address to his diocese another 
public protest against the inventions of the Augsburg Ga- 
zette. " The Atcgsburg Gazette^'' he says, " hardly ever pro- 
nounces my name without appending to it a falsehood." 
..." It would have been easy for us to prove that every 
Roman letter of the Augsburg Gazette contains gross per- 
versions and untruths. Whoever is conversant with the 
state of things here, and reads these letters, cannot doubt 
an instant that these errors are voluntary, and are part of a 
concerted system designed to deceive the public. If time 
fails me to correct publicly this uninterrupted series of 
falsehoods, it is impossible for me to keep silence when an 
attempt is made with so much perfidy to misrepresent my 
own convictions." 



Aggressions of the Civil Power, 107 

' Again, Bishop Hefele, commenting on the Roman corre- 
spondents of the Augsburg Gazette^ says : *' It is evident 
that there are people not bishops, but having relations with 
the Council, who are not restrained by duty and con* 
science." We had reason to believe that the names of these 
people, both German and English, were well known to us. 

* Now the testimony of the Bishop of Mainz, as to the 
falsehoods of these correspondents respecting Rome and 
Germany, I can confirm by my testimony as to their treat- 
ment of matters relating to Rome and England. I do not 
think there is a mention of my owii name without, as the 
Bishop of Mainz sayS, the appendage of a falsehood. The 
whole tissue of the correspondence is false. 

I have quoted all this to show the small chance the 
people of England had of knowing the truth as to the 
state and acts of the Council, and also how systematic 
was the opposition organised against it in Germany. 

After the suspension of the Council, the action of 
this conspiracy, hitherto secret, became open. Dr. 
Von Dollinger and certain Professors openly rejected 
the Vatican Council, accusing it of innovation. They 
therefore either took, or were called by, the name of 
* Old Catholics.* This schism has never been in one 
stay. Its development has had three progressive 
stages. At first the Old Catholics professed to hold 
by the Council of Trent, and to reject only the Council 
of the Vatican. As such they claimed to be recog- 
nised by the Prussian law. But next, at a meeting at 
Augsburg, a large infusion of German Rationalists 
compelled them to enlarge their comprehension, an4 

* Pi'trl Priv. part iii. pp. 4-7. 



io8 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 

to include those who rejected most of the doctrines of 
the Council of Trent. 

Lastly, at Cologne and Bonn, they received the ac- 
cession of Anglicans, American Episcopalians, Greeks, 
and various Protestants. 

The Old Catholic schism, therefore, has lost its 
meaning and its character, and has become a body 
without distinctive creed. Dr. Von DoUinger, at Bonn, 
last September, declared (if the report be correct) that 
Old Catholics are not bound by the Council of Trent. 

In the sphere of theology and religion the 
movement is already paralysed, and has no future ; 
but in the sphere of politics it has a great power of 
mischief. I have already shown how the first acts of 
the diplomatic and political hostility to the Council 
began at -Munich. There can be little doubt that it 
reached Berlin through the Circular of Prince Hohen- 
lohe, the present German Ambassador at Paris. The 
Berlin Government supported the Old Catholic Pro- 
fessors who rejected the Vatican Decrees, on the plea 
that the Council of Trent v/as knovvHi to the law in 
Prussia, but that the Council of the Vatican was not 
known. to it. It v/as exlex. Therefore the Government 
recognised the legal status of the Old Catholics who 
held to the Council of Trent. How they will still recog- 
nise them as Old Catholics, now that they have re- 
jected the Council of Trent at Bonn, it is not so easy to 
say. Hov/ever, Dr. Rcinkens was consecrated Bishop 
by a Jansenist Prelate, and received from the Berlin 
Government both legal recognition and a good salary. 
We shall see hereafter that the Government would 
thereby try to tempt the Catholic Clergy to its 



'Aggressions of the Civil Power. 109 

friendship, and to use the ' Old CathoHc ' schism as a 
we?tpon against the Cathohc Church. The ' Old Cath- 
oHc ' schism has an attraction for certain minds in 
which there is a strong hankering after the CathoHc 
Church without the courage to suffer for the truth's 
sake. An attempt, we have been told, was made to 
set up an ' Old Catholic ' Church in London, but it 
met w^ith little encouragement. 

There is not a doubt that the Berlin Government 
aims at changing all the Catholics in Germany into 
Old Catholics. 

The Old Catholics, in their appeal to the Civil 
Power, are doing what the Arians did after the 
Council of Nicsea. They have been, and they will be, 
the instigators of persecution against the CathoHc 
Church. But they are blindly doing God's will. 
When the Church has been purified, their place Vvill 
know them no more. 

To return to the politicians and diplomatists. 
What was believed as to the conspiracy at Munich 
before the Council met has since been confirmed by the 
letters of Count Arnim, which ascribe his own action 
to the instigation of Dr. Dollinger. The Berlin Cor- 
respondent of the Daily Tclegrapli^ after noticing the 
discrepancy between the despatch of Count Arnim, 
published by Prince Bismarck, and his * Pro Memoria/ 
which appeared in the Vienna Prcssc — the first ' treat- 
ing the dogma of Infallibility as a mere theological dis- 
sertation,' and the second, ^ seeing in it an event that 
must overthrov/ Catholicism and the peace of CathoHc 
States ' — proceeds to explain the contradiction thus: — 

' Tablet :Ve7vs/}apcr, Oct. 31 1S74, p. 546. 



no Aggressions of the Civil Power, 

' When Prince Hohenlohe, as leader of Bavarian foreign 
affairs, sent- his well-known Circular to different Powers, ex- 
plaining the dangers of that dogma, the German Chancellor 
applied to Count Arnim, who answered that the Bavarian 
Minister exaggerated the danger, being influenced by Bol- 
linger. After this answer was sent to Berlin, Count von Arnim 
went on his holidays, and in passing Munich visited Prince 
Hohenlohe. There they spoke about Infallibility, and Prince 
Uohenlohe acknowledged that the Circular was ivritien under 
Ddlli?iger's inspiration. The Prince asked the Count to visit 
Bollinger, which he did. Bollinger convincingly explained to 
Arnim the importance of the dogma; and, on his return, 
Arnim tried everything to prevent the result of the Council by 
repeatedly advising Prince Bismarck to interfere ; so the change, 
in Arnim's opinion, must be traced to Bollinger.' 

Before we enter upon the present conflict in 
Germany, so carelessly touched and dismissed by Mr. 
Gladstone, it is necessary to record the fact that, in 
the year 1849, ^^^ ^S^^^ Article of the German Con- 
stitution affirmed, that ^ Every religious Society shall 
order and m.anage its own affairs independently, but 
shall remain subject to the general power of the State/ 
The Prussian Constitution also recognized this inde- 
pendence. Such was the law until 1872. Under this 
law the Catholics were lo3^al, peaceful, and of unim- 
peachable allegiance to the State. They served it in 
peace ; they fought for it in war. They helped to 
found the Empire in their blood. Who made the 
change ? The Government of Berlin. The laws of 
1849 have been violated, and a series of laws, which 
I will hereafter describe, have been forced upon the 
Catholics of Prussia. The conflict was thus begun, 



Aggressions of the Civil Power. 1 1 1 

not by the Catholics nor by the Church, but by the Civil 
Power, Prince Von Bismarck is so conscious of this 
fact, that he has spared no accusation, how wild soever, 
against the Catholics to disguise and to mask it. The 
laws resisted now by the Bishops and Catholics of 
Prussia are not the old laws of their country, but in- 
novations, intolerable to conscience, newly introduced, 
and inflicted upon them by the fine and imprisonment 
of five Bishops and 1,400, it is even said 1,700, clergy. 
Surely the day is past when anyone believes that the 
Falck Laws were caused by the Vatican Council. The 
French war was scarcely ended when Prince Von Bis- 
marck accused the Catholics of Germany of disloyalty 
and conspiracy against the Empire. They had not 
even had time to be disloyal or to conspire. The 
Catholic blood shed in the war was not yet dry. He 
said then, as he said the other day, that he had 
secret evidence. Not a particle has ever been pro- 
duced. For a time Englishmen were perplexed. 
They did not know what to believe. They could 
not conceive that Prince Von Bismarck would 
make such charges without evidence ; but, little by 
little, the truth has come out. The Old Catholic 
conspiracy has been laid open to the world. The 
manly and inflexible constancy of the Catholic Bi- 
shops, Priests, and people of Germany has roused the 
attention of Englishmen, and they have come to know 
that no body of men were more gladly lo\'al to the 
Prussian Government than the Catholics on the basis 
of the laws of their country from 1848 to 1872; that 
no change whatsoever, by a jot or tittle, was made on 
their part ; that, on the part of Government, a new 



112 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 

and elaborate legislation, anti-Catholic and intolerable 
to conscience, was introduced in 1872. The whole in- 
novation was on the part of Government. The new 
laws excluded the Clergy from the schools ; banished 
the religious orders ; made Government consent neces- 
sary to the nomination of a Parish Priest ; fined and 
imprisoned Bishops for the exercise of their Spiritual 
office; subjected to the State the education of the 
Clergy, even to the examination for orders ; and estab- 
lished a final tribunal of Ecclesiastical appeal in Berlin. 
And yet men w^ere found who had still the hardihood 
to say that the Church had begun the conflict. At 
last, Dr. Friedberg, Professor of Law at Leipsic, and 
one of the chief advisers of Government in its Eccle- 
siastical policy, let out the real cause. With an incau- 
tious candour he has told us the truth. 

I v/ill take the account of Dr. Friedberg*s book, 
^ The German Empire and the Catholic Church,' from 
a pamphlet of the Bishop of Mayence, entitled, ' The 
New Prussian Bills on the Position of the Church in 
reference to the State.' ^ 

Bishop Ketteler begins by asking, ^ What could 
prompt the Liberal party to denounce as Ultramon- 
tane presumption, and as a surrender of the essential 
rights of the State, that which, in the years 1848- 
1850, it had acknowledged as the necessary *^ conse- 
quence of its ovvm principles " ? ' (p. 9) 

Bishop Ketteler answers, * The true reason of the 
thorough systematic change of the Liberal party, as 
well as of all those nneasures aimed against the lawful 

^ A translation made in Germany has been published by Messrs. 
Burns & Oates, 17 Portman Street. 



Aggressio7is of the Civil Power, 1 1 3 

rights of the Church, is ''the spiritual power of the 
Church based upon the foundation of freedom"* 

(p. II). 

He then quotes an Address of Dr. Friedberg, in 
which he says, ' The Doctrinaires will still tell us that 
the all-sufficient remedy of this is the separation of the 
Church from the State ; but, on the contrary, under 
actual circumstances, this would be a very injurious 
measure, yi?r the ChitrcJi lias become too much united to 
the people' 

He then shows that wherever the Church is free, as 
in the United States, it is powerful, because it is the 
Church of the people. ' What would be the conse- 
quence,' he asks, ' with us if the Church were freed 
from the control of the State?' 'On the contrary,' 
says Dr. Friedberg, ' as the wdiole question has become 
now one of main force ^ the State must go so far as to 
deprive the Church of her influence over the people, in 
order that its own power may be firmly established ' 
(pp. 10, II). 

Dr. Newman, more than thirty years ago, said that 
Governments establish and endow Churches as people 
cut the wings of magpies, that thc}^ may hop upon tlie 
lawn and pick up . Avorms. ' Liberals love a tame 
Church.* 

I quote this in answer to those who have been 
taunting the German Bishops with complaining of per- 
secution and of yet holding to their legal status : Pha- 
raoh has taught all oppressors ' not to let the people 

' Our crime as endangering the State,' sa\'s IVishop 
Ketteler, ^ consists in this — that wheresoever the pco- 



114 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 

pie and the Church are free, the people turn to the 
Church, and not to the doctrines of the Liberal party' 

(P- I3)> 

' Here we have the whole undisguised truth. To 

separate the Christian people from the Church, to de- 
prive it of freedom, to subjugate it by force to Liberal 
Statecraft and human wisdom, thus reducing it to a 
Liberal State-religion — this is the triumph of modern 
science and knowledge which Liberalism and its pro- 
fessors offer to the German people ' (p. 14). 

Bishop Ketteler then goes on to give Dr. Friedberg's 
argument : * The Protestant Church is, at this day, an 
essential political agent — solely by its opposition to 
Catholicism.* 

Dr. Von Holzendorff says of the Protestant Church, 
that ' it has no intellectual unity, because a short-sight- 
ed orthodoxy has sown and fostered indifference to- 
w^ards the Church ; and also from the fact that the 
Protestant Church did not create a constitution suited 
to its own spirit. Who could count upon the High Con- 
sistory Court of Berlin outliving for a day the separa- 
tion of the Church from the State ? or that the fiercest 
party strife would not break it up into sects ? But what 
an opportunity for the compact mass of the Catholic 
Church as opposed to these dismembered elements,' 
&c.^ This lets in light. 

Bishop Ketteler then sums up : ' These confessions 
of a pretended Liberal deserve notice. 

^ First, the Protestant Church is "' an essential politi- 



^ Year-Book of the Ger?7zan Empire, By Dr. F. von Holzendorff, 
Leipzig, p. 473, 1872, 



Aggressions of the Civil Power. 1 1 5 

cal agent," and especially so by her opposition to Cath- 
olicism. 

' Secondly, the Protestant Church cannot endure 
freedom and independence. *' After separation from 
the State it would be ^ dismembered.* The High Con- 
sistory of Berlin would scarcely survive a day." 

*• Thirdly, out of these dismembered elements an in- 
crease would fall to the Catholic Church. Principles 
truly Liberal. No longer shall the power of truth un- 
der the protection of equal freedom decide between 
the different creeds. In the hands of the Liberals the 
Protestant Church is to become a *^ political agent," 
*^ a tool of the State," to fight against Catholicism. Even 
liberty of conscience on the part of the people is to be 
destroyed to avert the danger of their turning to the 
Catholic Church. 

* Lastly, Dr. Friedberg refused to separate the 
Church from the State, because it would be ** a severity 
and an injustice," forsooth, to the Old Catholics. If 
the Church were set free, the Government would lose 
^* an immediate support and a co-operation so ncccssaiy 
to the State for tJie internal reform of tlie CJmrcliy ' 

The Bishop then sums upas follows : — The Govern- 
ment has changed its relations to the Catholic Church, 
* not because the Catholic Church is dangerous to the 
State, nor because it is hostile to the Empire, nor be- 
cause it will overbear the State ; these arc not the mo- 
tives, though they arc daily expressed in Parliament 
and in the press by the Liberal party, to show that the 
Catholic Church must be robbed of her Hberty, but be- 
cause the German people must be torn away by force 
from the Church ; and in order to attain this end, the 



/ 



1 1 6 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 

Protestant State Church and the "- Old Catholics " are 
to be used as weapons to fight the Catholic Church, 
and to destroy it internally/ &c. (p. 17). 

Such is the end and aim : now for the means. Dr. 
Friedberg says, ' One must first attempt to draw off the 
waters carefully, letting them flow into other channels, 
and conducting them into reservoirs ; what remains will 
then be easily absorbed into the air ' (p. 19). In other 
words, dry up the Church ; draw from it all intellectual, 
moral, and spiritual influence over the people ; paralyse 
the action of its Pastors ; substitute Bureaus, Regis- 
trars, Professors, State Teachers, and State Officials ; 
make its vv'orship a State Ritualism, a ceremonial of 
subjective feelings, not of objective Truth. This done, 
religion will soon evaporate. The sum of all. Bishop 
Ketteler says, is that 

^ The Strcte will regard the Church as a historical established 
institution, which may be very useful to the State by fulfilling 
its peculiar and necessary mission for the civilisation of the 
German people, but which, on the other hand, may become 
dangerous to the State, and has become so. 

* For the first reason the Church shall be not only tolerated 
but also be authorised by the State. For the second reason, 
it is to be rendered harmless. 

* This will dry up the stream, and the rest will evaporate.' 

After this I think even an English Nonconformist 
would read the Unam Sanctam with nev/ e}^es. 

Nov/, the proximate means of accomplishing this 
draining of the Pontine Marshes is ^ the inward and 
outward release ' of the Clergy from all dependence on 
powers ' outside our nation,' and * strangers to our 



Aggressions of the Civil Power. 1 1 7 

national consciousness ; ' that is to say, a spiritual 
blockade against the Church throughout the world, or 
* our German consciousness ' against Christianity. 

The inward release of the Clergy is to be effected 
'through their education ' (pp. 29, 30). Their educa- 
tion is to be as follows :— 

1. Every Priest is to go through an examination at 
a German College. 

2. He is to study Theology for three years in a Ger- 
man State University, 

All independent seminaries and religious colleges 
for boys are iilterdicted. 

3. He is finally to be examined in the presence of 
a Commissary of the Government. 

4. The State has the superior direction of all in- 
struction of the Clergy. 

5. It fixes the method of their teaching. 

6. It decides the qualification of their teachers. 

The Bishop is to be, in all these relations, depend- 
ent on the State ; the State forms the Catholic Clergy 
to its own fashion ; and the Bishop has only to receive 
them and to give them cure of souls. 

The Bishop of Mayence justly says: 'A Clergy in- 
wardly deprived of faith, falling under the bondage of 
unbelief and the spirit of the times, would, no doubt, 
become the perfect ideal of national education ' (pp. 

35, 36). 

Next for the ^ outward release ' of the Clergy. 

First it means that the State will regulate the ap- 
pointment and deposition, and the correctional disci- 
pline of the Clergy by local Civil authorities, and partly 
by a Supreme Royal court for Clerical affairs. 



ii8 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 

The Clergy are therefore perfectly released : 

First, from the jurisdiction of the Head of the 

Church. 
Secondly, from the jurisdiction of their own 
Bishops. 
The effect of this release is : 

First, that any fit and worthy Priest may be 
kept out of the cure of souls and all spiritual 
offices by the veto of the State. 
Second, that any unfit or unworthy, any im- 
moral or heretical, Priest may be supported in 
defiance of his Bishop, to the scandal of the 
Church and the perdition of Souls. 
An unlimited veto is an unlimited right of patron- 
age. 

What kind of man will grow up out of the soil of 
State Universities, and under the sun of State Patron- 
age ? 

What priest of fidelity to the Church and of per- 
sonal dignity of character w^ill sell or lend himself to 
such a despotism ? 

We have read lately a little too much of the * pli- 
ancy and servility * and * degradation ' of the Catholic 
Episcopate. What is the ideal of a Bishop in those 
who assail the Vatican Council and sympathise with the 
Old Catholics? By these laws the Clergy and Bishops 
are liberated or released from the foreign oppression of 
Rome. The Pope cannot suspend one of them. But the 
Royal Court may depose them all. Is Dr. Reinkens, 
with his sixteen thousand thalers a year, under the 
Falck Laws, independent, high-minded, and manly? 
Is the Archbishop of Posen, in his prison, pliant, ser- • 



Aggressions of the Civil Power. 1 1 9 

vile, and degraded ? This seems to me to ' put light 
for darkness, and darkness for light/ It would be an 
anxious sign of our time and state if an inverted moral 
sense should grow upon us. 

The Bishop of Mayence finally sums up this exter- 
nal release of their Clergy as follows : 

These laws amount to — 

1. Separation of the Church in Germany from Rome. 

2. Annihilation of the powers of the Bishops. 

3. The breaking up of all authority and discipline over the 

Clergy and people. 

4. Unlimited (iontrcl of the State over the Clergy, and over 

religion. 

5. Universal moral corruption of the whole Church. 

6. Introduction and encouragement of every form of error 
contrary to faith and to Christianity among the teachers. 

7. Loss of Christian faith among the people. 

The Bishop then protests against these laws as — 

' A violation of all Christian liberties, and of all Constitutional 
rights; as an attempt to force on the Catholic Church the 
Royal Supremacy of the Protestant Reformation ; as a viola- 
tion of the Divine constitution and authority of the Catholic 
Church ; and, finally, as leading men back again into the 
Coesarism of the Pagan wodd, in which the temporal and 
spiritual sovereignty were united in one person. The separa- 
tion of the two powers which the Divine Founder of Chris- 
tianity has introduced for the protection of the liberties of 
human life in faith, conscience and religion woukl be once 
more extinguished in Germany. It would tlien be easy to 
overthrow, one after another, tlie other safeguards of the 
freedom of the people. The army, tlic official State press, or 
State school, or State Church, aU united together woukl 



1 20 Aggressions of the Civil Powe7\ 

transplant the old despotism of the Pagans to German soil' 
(p. 49). 

He concludes in these words : — 

' Finally, these laws are in their whole substance revolu-" 
tionary, and a denial of the historical positive development oi 
the rights, and an uprooting of all the constitutional privileges, 
of the people. They will bring about a conflict with the 
Catholic Church, with its essential constitution and its doc- 
trines ; they attempt to force upon the Cathohc Church a con- 
stitution similar to that of the Protestant Church. By placing 
all earthly power in the hands of one man they introduce the 
system of the heathen despotism into Germany. 

^ May God guard our German Fatherland from the disas- 
trous consequences of such laws.' 

Before this noble protest was published these Bills 
became law. I hope no Englishman will now say that 
the conflict in Germany was brought on by the Church. 
The pretext of Vatican Council is as transparently 
false as the plea of the wolf against the lamb. Such, 
then, are the Falck Laws; and I have read no part of 
Mr. Gladstone's ' Expostulation * wdth more sadness 
than the following words : — 

' I am not competent to give any opinion upon the parti- 
culars of that struggle. The institutions oi" Germany, and the 
relative estimate of State power and individual freedom, are 
materially different from ours.' ^ 

Are faith and conscience ' institutions * to be 
' estimated ' ^ relatively ' ? Is religious freedom, to 
the vindication of which Mr. Gladstone has given a 
long public life, a matter to be measured by geogra- 

^ The Vaiicait Decrees^ &^c. p. 48. 



n 



Aggressions of the Civil Power. 121 

phical cr political conditions ? I do not recognise this 
voice. 

It may, I think, with safety be affirmed/ that in 
the lamentable conflict now waging in Germany, the 
Berlin Government, urged on by the conspiracy of 
the * Old Catholics,* aided, no doubt, at a later stage, 
by the pseudo-Liberals of Prussia, has been the 
aggressor. 

The same could be abundantly proved in respect to 
the persecution of the Church in Switzerland. I have 
before me full and authentic evidence of the ag-p-res- 
sion of the Cantonal Governments of Bale, Soleure, 
and Berne and others. But I will not prolong this 
chapter by a recital. The proof will be found in the 
Appendix C. 

It would be as easy also to show that in Brazil the 
Government was the aggressor. The Bishop of Olinda 
is at this moment in penal servitude, for refusing 
religious rites at the burial of an excommunicated 
person. 

This will, I hope, be deemed a sufficient proof of 
my third proposition, which in sum is this, that the 
present collisions between the Civil and Spiritual 
Powers have not been caused by the Church. There 
is everywhere a party aiming at the subversion of 
Christianity. The great barrier in their way is the Ca- 
tholic Church. They are nov/ openly conspiring for its 
overthrow. 

In England our old craters arc extinct and the 
mountains are quiet. Such a conflict has, happily, not 
yet been rekindled among u?. No change o\\ the part 
of the Catholic Church, of a kind to provoke such a con- 



122 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 

flict, either has been or will be made. The dedining to 
accept a scheme of education based on principles dan- 
o-erous to CathoHc Faith is certainly no such cause. To 
reject a tempting gift is no aggression. If we are again 
■ to be distracted by religious conflicts, the responsi- 
bihty will rest undividedly upon the head of anyone 
who shall break our present public confidence and 
peace. And that misdeed w^ould be indelibly written 
in our history. 



T^^tie and False Progress. 123 



CHAPTER IV. 

TRUE AND FALSE PROGRESS.' 

I WILL now go on to the fourth proposition — that by 
these collisions with the Church the Civil Powers every- 
where are at this time destroying the first principle of 
their own stability. 

Mr. Gladstone has represented me as saying that 
* the civil order of all Christendom is the offspring of 
the Temporal Power, and has the Temporal Power for 
its keystone ; that on the. destruction of the Temporal 
Power *' the laws of nations would at once fall in 
ruins." ' 

Understood as I wrote these words I fully affirm 
them ; understood as they maybe in this garbled form, 
they have an exaggeration which is not mine. I was 
speaking strictly of the Temporal Power of the 
Pope over his own State: whereby, as a King among 
Kings, he sustained the Christian character of Sove- 
reignty. I was not speaking of Temporal power 
over the Temporal Government of Princes. And I 
v;as speaking in defence at a time when every journal 
in tlie country, v/ith hardly an exception, was day 
^'tftcr day assailing, and I must add misrepresenting, the 
ori^.;-iu and office of the Temporal Government of the 
Pope. My own words were as follows : — 

' Now, the Inst point on which I will (bvcll is thi^ : tlint ns 
the Church of God has created — and that specially through 



124 T7'ne and False Progress. 

the action of the Supreme Pontiffs in their civil mission to the 
world — this vast and fair fabric of Christian Europe, so it has 
perpetually sustained it. I ask, what has given it coherence? 
What is it that has kept alive the governing principle among 
men, but that pure f^iith or knowledge of God which has gone 
forth from the Holy See, and has filled the whole circumfer- 
ence of Christendom ? What has bound men together in the 
respect due to mutual rights, but that pure morality which was 
delivered to the Church to guard, and of which the Holy See 
is the supreme interpreter ? These two streams — which, as St. 
Cyprian says in his treatise on the unity of the Church, are 
like the rays that flow from the sun, or like the streams 
that rise and break from the fountain — illuminated and 
inundated the whole Christian world. Now, I ask, what 
has preserved tins in security, but the infallibility of the 
Church of God vested chiefly and finally in the person 
of the Vicar of Jesus Christ? It will rather belong to 
the next lecture to note how, by contrast, this may be proved, 
and hov/ those nations, which have separated themselves from 
the Unity of the Catholic Church, and therefore are in opposi- 
tion to the temporal sovereignty of Rome, have lost these two 
great principles of their preservation. I ask, then, what has 
preserved Christian Europe, but the principle of obedience — the 
precept of submission, which has been taught throughout the 
whole of its circuit by the Church of God, especially through 
the mouths of its Pontiffs ? By them subjects have been taught 
obedience and rulers have learned justice. What, I ask, has 
limited monarchy? What has made monarchy a free institu- 
tion, and supreme power compatible with the personal liberty 
of the people, but the limitations which the Holy See, acting 
through its Pontiffs, has imposed upon the Princes of the 
world? Does anybody doubt these two propositions? To 
them I would say, the Pontiffs, with their temporal power, have 
been accused of despotism ; at least, then, let us give them the 



True and False Pi'ogress. 125 

credit of having taught the people to submit. They have been 
;t]so accused of tyranny over Princes; at least let us give them 
ihc honor of having taught Kmgs that their power is limited. 
'v\\^ dread chimera at which the Enghsh people especially 
stands in awe, — the deposing power of the Pope, — what was 
it but that supreme arbitration, whereby the highest power in 
the world, the Vicar of the Incarnate Son of God, anointed 
high-priest and supreme temporal ruler (i.e. as Sovereign in his 
own State), sat in his tribunal impartially to judge between 
nation and nation, between people and prince, between sove- 
reign and subject ? The deposing power grew up by the pro- 
vidential action of God in the world, teaching subjects obedi- 
ence and princes clemency. 

' Now, in this tw^ofold power of the Popes, which has been, 
I may say, the centre of the diplomacy of Christian Europe, 
we see the sacerdotal and royal powers vested in one person, 
the two powers of king and priest, which are the two conserva- 
tive principles of the Christian world. All Christian kings and 
all Christian priests stand related to the one person who bears 
in fulness that twofold character; and it is by adherence to 
that one person as the centre of the civil and spiritual system, 
which grew up under his hand, that Christian Europe is pre- 
served. I should say further, that, vast and solid as Christen- 
dom may seem, like a vault of stone, the temporal power of 
the Pope is the keystone; strike it out, and the family of nations 
would at once fall in ruins.' ^ 

In the very same chapter from which Mr. Gladstone 
has quoted, at page 46, the following statements occur 
at pages 32 and 33 : — 

(i)^Our Divine Lord committed to Ilis Church 
and to His Vicar — the head on earth of that Church — • 

^ Tcuipoml Pozvcr of the Popes, lecture ii. pp. 44-47. (Bvinis, 1S62.) 



126 True and False Progress. 

His Spiritual sovereignty, reserving to Himself His 
Temporal or providential sovereignty. . . . There- 
fore \.\i^ Spiritual sovereignty of the Church is a Divine 
institution, and has a power directly ordained of God. 
(2) There are other powers in the Avorld which are in- 
directly ordained of God — -viz. all temporal sovereign- 
ties. ... (3) By an indirect but Divine providence 
our Divine Lord has liberated flis Vicar upon earth, 
in the plenitude of His Spiritual sovereignty, from all 
civil subjection. ... (4) By the same Providence 
— indirect, indeed, but nevertheless Divine — our Lord 
clothed His Vicar with the possession of a patrimony. 
. . . (5) Upon the basis of this temporal possession 
our Lord has raised a temporal power by His indirect 
operation, and therefore the temporal power of the 
Pope is a Divine ordinance, having a Divine sanction, 
at least equally with every other sovereignty in the 
world.' ^ It may not be amiss to add, lest it should be 
thought that this statement is merely a private opinion, 
that the text from which I quote was translated into 
Italian, in Rome, in 1862, v/as examined by the censor- 
ship, and printed at the Propaganda press. 

This is still my unchanged belief, confirmed by the 
twelve years since these words were spoken, and by the 
shattered state of Christian Europe in 1875. Now I 
am not afraid of defending the condensed statement of 
Donoso Cortes : ' The history of Civilisation is the his- 
tory of Christianity ; the history of Christianity is the 
history of the Church ; the history of the Church is the 
history of the Pontiffs.' St. Augustine's work De 

^ Temporal Power of the Popes y pp. 32, 33.' 



True aiid False Progress. 127 

Civitate Dei is enough to prove that the civihsation of 
the old world had run itself out by incurable corrup- 
tion, and that the civilisation of the modern world is 
the new creation of Christianity. Two other witnesses 
would also prove this: St. Paul in his first chapter to 
the Romans, and Dr. Dollinger in his work on ' The 
Jev/ish and "the Gentile Nations.' I am indeed one of 
those who still believe that we owe Christian homes to 
Christian marriage, that v/e owe Christian men to Chris- 
tian homes, that we owe Christian nations to Christian 
men, and that the transmission of national Christianity 
depends on Christian education. We owe, therefore, 
the civilisation of Europe to Christian nations, and w^e 
owe the whole, not to ' modern thought,' but to Chris- 
tiai-i'y. 

Moreover, I know of no agent by which Christianity 
was thus brought to bear upon mankind but the Chris- 
tian Church ; and, lastly, the heads of the Christian 
Church were the chief legislators, guides, judges, and 
protectors of this Christian civilisation. I cannot think 
that Mr. Gladstone would deny this, or that we have 
read history, all this while, in an inverted sense. 

But there is another sense in which the Temporal 
Power of the Popes — that is, their local sovereignty — 
has in an especial manner created modern Europe. To 
them and to the Civil Government of the Patrimonies 
of the Church, when the Byzantine Empire had ceased 
to protect the West, may be ascribed the Christendom 
of which Charlemagne was the first Temporal Head. 
From that germ the Christian civilisation of Europe 
has been propagated by Christian marriage. Christian 
education, and Christian Hiith. Until ' Luther's 



128 True and False Progixss. 

mighty trumpet ' was blown it was bou*nd tog»ct«»her by 
unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of jurisdic- 
tion under one Head, and that Head united in himself 
the twofold character of Christian Pontiff and Christian 
King. Luther's blast has brought this down at last. 
First, byregalism in Protestant nations; and, secondly, 
by revolution in Catholic States. The principles of 
1789 are Lutheranism applied to politics. We have 
already reached the time of civil marriage, of secular 
education, and of States in their public life without 
Christianity. But let us not think that we have reached 
our place of rest. Luther's blast, I fear, has yet more 
to do. Faith is dying out of the public life and action 
of all Governments. There is hardly a Catholic or a 
Christian Government left. The people they govern 
are divided in religion, and ' the religious difficulty ' 
forces them to become simply secular in legislation and 
in action. So long as there v/as a Christian world, the 
Head of the Christian Church was recognised as the 
Vicar of a Divine Master, and had a Temporal Power 
among Christian Sovereigns, and a sovereignty of his 
own ; but now that the nations have become secular, 
and no longer recognise his sacred office, his direction 
in temiporal things is rejected by their rejection of 
faith. I am not arguing or lamenting, but explaining 
our actual state. And what is now the state and con- 
dition of the Christian world ? Where are the Chris- 
tian laws wdiich formed it in the beginning? I was 
not far wrong in saying that the Temporal Power of 
the Head of the Christian Church was the keystone 
of a world which has crumbled from its Christian unity 
into a dismembered array of secular and conflicting 



T7'iie and False Progress, 129 

nations, of armed camps and retarded maturity. And 
it is with this * progress and modern civiHsation that 
the Roman Pontiff is invited to conform and to recon- 
cile himself.' This is the sum and exposition of ' mo- 
dern thought/ save only that it omits the Agnostic 
theology De Deo nan existente, and the anthropjology of 
Apes. Mr. Gladstone quotes this contemned proposi- 
tion, recited in the Syllabus, as d. gravamen against the 
Pope and the Catholics of these kingdoms. We have no 
desire to see the Christian Commonwealth of England 
decompose before our eyes under Luther's blast. We 
are content v/ith the English Monarchy, founded and 
consolidated by our Catholic forefathers ; and with 
our English Constitution, of which the solid and un- 
/shaken base and the dominant constructive lines are 
Christian and Catholic. We Englislimen were once 
perfectly one in failh. Luther's blast has given us 
nearly three hundred years of penal laws, bitter con- 
tentions, a ' bloody reign of Mary,' a relentless shower, 
indeed, between two seas of blood, in the reigns of her 
father and her sister; and when these horrors relaxed, 
streams of blood still flowed on for another hundred 
years. P^or nearly three centuries we have been divided 
in politics, because politics were mixed up with re- 
ligion. Our Legislature teemed with penal laws such 
as the Avorld had never seen, and that against nearly a 
half of the English population. We were weakened 
because we were divided ; haunted by suspicions of 
conspiracy and scared by fancied dangers, because we 
were consciously doing wrong, as Prussia is at this 
day. But now for fifty years we have had peace, be- 
cause wc have commpn interests, and a solid conimgn 



130 True and False Progress. 

weal. The three Kingdoms are without anxiety and 
without fear. And why ? Because we have ehmi- 
nated rehgious conflicts from our Legislation, be- 
cause we have learned to be just, because v/e 
have learned also that the Civil Ruler may pun- 
ish what men do, but not what men think, un- 
less they issue in acts against the State. All men, so 
far as conscience and faith extend, are now equal be- 
fore the lav/. No man is molested for his religion. 
Although this is not the golden age of unity in truth, 
which the Christian Church once created and Pius IX. 
declares to be the only civilisation - and the only pro- 
gress to which he can conform himself, though he toler- 
ates Vvdiat he cannot cure ; nevertheless, it is a silver 
age in Vv^hich v/e can peacefully accept what we cannot 
either justify as the will of God, or extol as the normal 
state of the Christian world. In our shattered stat^ of 
religious belief and worship there is no w^ay of solid 
civil peace, but in leaving all men free in their amplest 
liberty of faith. It is because this is vital to our wel- 
fare as an Empire, and because, as it seems to me, the 
late sudden and needless aggression on the Catholic re- 
ligion is dangerous to the social and political tranquil- 
lity of these Kingdoms, that I have pointed to Ger- 
many, as a warning. A monarchy of a thousand years 
is a majestic thing in this modern world of fleeting 
dynasties and of chronic revolutions. We possess a 
royal lineage the least broken and the miost closely 
united to the people that the world has ever seen, save 
one. The line of Pontiffs ruled before the crowned 
heads of to-day came into existence. It has been the 
vital chord of the Christian people of the world. 



True and False Progress, 131 

Next after the line of Pontiffs, there is nothing in his- 
tory more time-honored or grander than the Mon- 
archy of Alfred, which reigns to this day. Does Mr. 
Gladstone think that the Vatican Council binds me 
to desire its overthrow ? Next to seein^^ arain the 
laws and the faith of good King Edward restored 
throughout the land, we desire to see the Sovereign- of 
England reigning by equal laws over a people united 
at least in everything that is right and just and lavv^ful 
in this world, if indeed they must still be in higher laws 
and truths divided. 

One thing is most certain. Catholics will never lend 
so much as a finger or a vote to overturn by political 
action the Christianity which still lingers in our public 
laws. They will cherish all of it that remains in our 
popular education. If we could see the tradition of 
our national Christianity healed of its wounds and taken 
up into the full life and unity of perfect faith by the 
spiritual forces of conviction and of persuasion, as that 
supernatural unity was created in the beginning, we 
should rejoice with thanksgiving ; but no Catholic will 
diminish by a shade the Christianity which still sur- 
vives. We cannot, indeed, co-operate by any direct 
action to uphold what we believe to be erroneous ; 
but it will find no political hostility in us. They who 
wish its overthrow w^ould pull it down not for what we 
think erroneous in it, but for what is true ; and what 
is true in it we revere as the truth of God. In our 
divided religious state the public revenues, once paid 
into the treasury, have passed beyond the individual 
conscience. Thenceforward they fall under the impar- 
tial administration of our mixed commonwealth. I 



132 True (iJid False Progress. 

am not responsible for the application of them. My 
conscience is not touched if public revenues are given 
to a Presbyterian or to a Baptist School. My con- 
science is not ill at ease even if grants arc made to a 
school in which no religion at all is taught. A people 
divided in religion pays its taxes, and a Parliament 
divided in religion votes the public money by an 
equitable balance for our manifold uses in the midst 
of our manifold divisions. No one has a right to con- 
trol this mixed administration to satisfy his private 
conscience, or to claim to have it all his own way. 
No Secularist can regard my schools with more aver- 
sion than I regard his ; but I am passive when he re- 
ceives his share of the public money. I trust the 
day will never come when any one section or sect 
among us shall gain a domination over the equities 
which render tolerable our divided state. I hope 
no Puritans will rise up again to do in England, by 
the help of Secularists and unbelievers, what they did 
in Maryland. There they destroyed the fairest pro- 
mise of peace that a wrecked world ever saw. England 
at this time is Maryland upon an imperial scale. He 
who shall break our religious peace will go down to 
history with those whose names Englishmen try to 
forget. 

It is for this reason that I lament when six mil- 
h'ons of British subjects are told by a voice of great 
authority that they are loyal indeed, but in spite of 
their religion. When men are so taught they are very 
apt to learn the lesson. They will be ready to say, 
if by my whole life I am loyal, but by my religion 
I ought, as I am told, to be disloyal, I am,, therefore, 



,-- Ti'tcc and False Progress, 133 

either a traitor or a Iicrctic. If I am a heretic I sliall 
lose my soul ; but for imputed treason I can only lose 
my life. If men of Mr. Ghidstone's age and fame say 
these things, the masses will be very apt to believe 
them. And if he should also say that Pius IX. and 
the whole Episcopate, and the Vatican Council, and 
the Clergy of England and Ireland, so believe and 
teach, I can hardly find fault with a i)lain man who says, 
* Your arguments and quotations are above me, but I 
know that the Pope and the Church cannot mislead me ; 
they must know the Catholic faith better than you. At 
all costs I must j^elieve them.' I could not blame such 
a man in refusing for so obvious a reason to listen to 
Mr. Gladstone when he expostulates with the Vatican 
Council. Indeed, I can conceive that it will not pro- 
mote loyalty in England or Ireland to hold up passages 
from books written even by me in proof that Catholics 
must choose between their loyalty and their religion. 
They may be more likely to choose to err even with me 
than to correct their faith at the voice of any politician. 
Moreover, they may even be tempted to think that if 
I am not loyal they need not be. It is a dangerous 
thing to tell a flock of many millions that the Pastors 
they trust are, or ought to be, disloyal. They will be 
apt to say, * We do not understand it ; but if it be true, 
there must be some very strong and sufficient reason.' 
I can conceive that the Catholic peasants in German)- 
may have argued in this plain way, even before \\\r\ 
understood the merits of the cause. They saw the 
Archbishop of Posen carried off to prison. Depend 
upon it their confidence went with him. This is pla\'- 
ing with edged tools, and in a matter where it ii hardly 



134 Trzce afid False Progress. 

moral to play at all. Great public disasters might be 
caused by the game, and the costs of the game would 
fall, not upon the gamester, but upon innocent men, 
and women, and children. 

I could not refrain from saying thus much of Eng- 
land. But I have little fear that the stream of our equal 
legislation will be turned aside, much less turned back; 
. or that our public peace wuU be broken. The destinies 
of the British Empire are in strong hands, guided hy 
calm heads, and supported by a balanced and steady 
public opinion, v/hich in the last two months has mani- 
fested a self-comxmand and an equity which do honour to 
our country. 

As to Germany I shall say no more. Luther's 
might trumpet has already rung twice through Ger- 
many. It rang long and loud from 1535 to 1542, and 
again longer and louder from 1618 to 1648. The old 
Germany that heard it has ceased to exist. ^ God grant 
that it may not give such notes again. Everyone who 
bears a hum.an heart, and a love for the Christian world 
and a good-will to Germany, wall share in this desire. 

But if the conflicts of Governments against the 
Church are fatal to the public peace and to them.- 
selves, as assuredly they would be to the British Em- 
pire if our accusers should rekindle old strifes, and as 
they assuredly w^ill be in the German Empire, whether 
the policy of Prince Von Bismarck fail or succeed, 
there can be found no sadder example of this disastrous 
imprudence in statesmen than in the case of Italy. For 
eight and twenty years a wanton and mischievous ag- 

^ See Archbishop Trench's Gitstuviis Adclphiis^ pp. 88, 'to^ i6r. 



True a7id False Pivgress. 135 

gression against^ the Holy See has been carried on. I 
say wanton, because it has been without a cause. I 
say mischievous, because it has retarded and endanger- 
ed the unity and independence of Italy, and the public 
and private prosperity of the Italian people. As Mr. 
Gladstone has reviewed his relation to the Italian ques- 
tion in its bearing on his Expostulation, I may do the 
samiC. 

At the outset of their task of unifying and vindi- 
cating the independence of Italy, the Italian politicians 
began by assailing the principle of all unity among 
men. They engaged all the pride and all the passion 
of Italy in a deadly conflict with the special source of 
all its greatness. Had they worked from that centre 
of their moral life, Italy at this day would have been 
united, peaceful, and strong. These are, indeed, my 
convictions, but not my words. Neither the present 
party which rules Italy, nor the party which has en- 
couraged them in this country, will, perhaps, listen to 
me. But they will listen, I hope, to one who was an 
Italian, and a lover of the unity and independence of 
Italy. Vincenzo Gioberti, in his * Primato degli Itali- 
ani,' after proving that religion is the source of all civi- 
lisation, says : — 

' If, then, the whole culture of a people has its impulse and 
origin from religion, how can we treat of its culture without 
speaking of its religion ? If the culture of Europe in general, 
and that of Italy in particular, were the work of the New Rome 
and of its belief, how is it possible to discuss this twofold argu- 
ment, and to be silent about Catholicism and about tlie 
Pop.e ? In writing a book upon Italy I ]H-otest tluit I desire to 
S'pcak of tb.e livinir and real Italv as it exists at ib.is dav, not of 



136 T^'ue and False Progress, 

the Italy that is dead these fourteen hundred years, nor of an 
abstract allegorical Italy that is not to be found in the outward 
world, but only in the brain of some philosopher/ ... * Italy 
is differenced from the Gentile nations by its Christianity; from 
those that are in heresy and schism by its Catholicism ; and 
from the other nations which are Catholic by the fact that it is 
placed in the centre of Catholicism, and not in the outline or 
circumference/ . . . ' But among the Catholic populations, 
the Italian has the privilege of occupying the first place, be- 
cause it possesses in its heart the fu'st See. 

* I hope that these suggestions will be enough to justify the 
small amount of theology that I have put into this book. . . , 
Two facts seem to me conspicuous in the political {civile) world 
at this day * . . . 'the first is the exclusion of the Theology of 
Revelation from the field of the Encyclopedia of human know- 
ledge; the second is the removal of the Catholic clergy from 
the influence in civil affairs.' .... ^ I count it to be the duty 
of a writer, above all if he be a philosopher, Catholic and 
Italian, to combat these two grand aberrations of modern civi- 
lisation, and to recall things to their first principles; endeav- 
ouring to restore the universal primacy of religion in the circle 
of things and of knowledge/ ....*! therefore do not believe 
that I deceive myself in affirming that every scientific reform is 
vain, if it do not make chief account of religion, and that every 
scheme of Italian renovation is null, if it have not for its base 
the corner-stone of Catholicism.' ^ 

After a contrast of the theoretical abstractions of 
the Ghibelline party and the practical and popular 
policy of the Guelphs, Gioberti continues : — 

*The Italy of that day was not the Italy of the ancient 
Latins, corrupted by the incapacity of the later Emperors, and 

^ Gioberti, Prlmato drgli lialianiy vol. ii. pp. 28-31. 



True and False Progress. 137 

destroyed by the ferocity of the northern barbarians. In its 
stead a new Rome had been created, under the auspices, not 
of Romulus, but of Peter, not of the Conscript Fathers of old 
Rome, but of the Episcopate, and of the councils which are 
the Patrician order and the Senate of the universal Christen- 
dom. The Guelphs, therefore, did not separate the civil con- 
stitution of Italy from the Pontificate, and, without confound- 
ing the hum^ln order with the divine, they believed that God, 
having privileged the Peninsula with the first See of the faith, 
mother of all others .... it ought to exercise the chief part 
in the political order of Italy.' , , , ' But in this day many 
think otherwise, and in their opinion the Pope has about as 
much to do with the national condition of Italy as he has with 
that of China. This comes from the weakness into which 
foreign influences have led the Papacy, and from the spring- 
ing up again for the last century of the ancient spirit 
of the Nominahsts and the Ghibellines, under the form 
of GalHcanism, Jansenism, Cartesianism, Voltairianism, or 
under the disguise of rationalism and German pantheism, 
prompted by the same principles, and springing from 
the same countries respectively as those former heresies. 
And the evil will last as long as men persist in sub- 
stituting a heathen or chimerical Italy in the place of a real 
and a Christian Italy, which God, and a life of eighteen hun- 
dred years, has created ; that is to say, a French or German 
Italy in the place of an Italy of the Italians. But I cannot 
understand how men can ascribe the civilisation of Europe in 
general to Christianity (of which there is at this day no writer 
of any force who doubts), and not award in particular tlic cul- 
ture of our Peninsula to the Ploly See ; for tlie Pope is to the 
universal Church that which the civiUsation of Italy is to that 
of Europe.* ^ 

^ Gioberti, P?imafo dcgli Italiani, vol. ii. pp. 66, 67. 



138 True and False Progress. 

I will add but one more passage, which will enun- 
ciate in the words of an Italian patriot the affirmation 
I have made : — 

'The separating of the national personality of Italy from its 
religious principle, and from the dignity which spreads 
throughout it from the Christian monarchy of which it is the 
home (residenza)^ is not, in my opinion, the least of the causes 
which, for many centuries, weakens the minds of Italians. 
This error sprung in part from the habit of arguing and judg- 
ing of Christian Italy after the manner of pagans, and in part 
from the custom of reasoning, according to the canons of 
a philosophy which is governed, not by rational ideas nor by 
living and concrete facts, but by empty abstractions.'^ 

Such was the estimate of a man who loved Italy 
with all his heart, and desired to see it united, and in- 
dependent of all foreign dynasties. 

This is no mere speculation as to what the Catholic 
religion and the Pope may be to Italy, but a strict his- 
torical fact. The Pontiffs have been for fourteen hun- 
dred years the chief popular power in Italy. I say 
popular, not dynastic; not despotic, but Guelf. In the 
fifth century the Pontiffs saved Italy from the Gothic 
invasions. St. Innocent I. saved Ravenna and Rome. 
St. Leo saved Italy from Attila, and Rome from Gen- 
seric. In the sixth and seventh centuries St. Gregory 
was the chief defender of Italy and Rome against the 
Lombards. The same is true in the time of Gregory 
II. and Adrian I. In the ninth, tenth, and eleventh 
centuries the Pontiffs Leo IV. and Gregory IV. saved 
. Italy from the Saracens. So also John VIII., John X., 

^ Gioberti, Primato dcgli lialiaui^ vol. ii. pp. 60. 



True and False Progress. 139 

Benedict VIII. beat back the Saracens, and finally drove 
them from Sardinia. The Crusades of Urban II. and 
St. Pius V. saved Italy and Europe from the Moham- 
medan Power. In the great contest about Investitures, 
the Pontiffs, from Gregory VII. to CaHstus 11. , saved 
the Church from subjection to the Empire, and Italy 
from subjection to Germany. The ecclesiastical and 
political liberties of Italy were both at stake, and were 
both vindicated together by the action of the Pontiffs. 
In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the liberty of 
the Italian Communes was saved from the feudal 
despotism of the Hohenstaufen by the Popes. Alexan- 
'der III. and the Lombard League defended popular 
liberty against Frederick Barbarossa. The City of 
Alexandria is to this day the monument of the grati- 
tude of the Lombard people. The City of Caesarea has 
ceased to exist. Innocent III. and the Tuscan League 
saved the liberties of Central Italy. Gregory IX. and 
Innocent IV. resisted the tyranny of Frederick II., and 
finally saved the independence of Italy from the Im- 
perial despotism. Then came the contest of the people 
and the Empire, the Guelfs and the Ghibellines. In 
these conflicts the Popes and the people were indivisible. 
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the Popes 
were the soul and the strength of the Italian Leagues, 
whereby the people and their liberties were protected 
from the enormities of tyrants and adventurers and 
Free Companies. In the fifteenth century Nicholas 
V. maintained peace among the Princes and people of 
Italy, and drew Naples, Milan, IHorcncc, Venice, and 
Genoa into a Confederation to maintain the Italian 
independence. 



140 True and False Pro gr est 

Pius II. protected, in like manner, the liberty of 
Italy from the intrusions of France. Paul II. leagued 
together all the Princes of Italy in defence of Italian 
freedom. Julius II. laboured to drive all foreign domi- 
nation out of Italy. Leo X. made it his chief policy 
to liberate Italy from all foreign dominion, and to 
unite all the Princes of Italy in a Confederation of in- 
dependence. 

Paul IV., though unsuccessful, was the champion 
of the independence of Italy against the Spaniards. 
From that time onwards the Pontiffs were ever in con- 
flict against Spain or France to save the liberties of 
Italy and of the Church. The histories of Pius VI. 
and Pius VII. are too well known to need recital. 

It is therefore too late in the day to go about to 
persuade men that the Pontiffs were ever opposed to 
Italian unity, Italian freedom, Italian independence. 
These three things have been the aim and the work 
of the whole line of Popes, down to Pius IX. Even 
Mr. Gladstone acknowledges that Pius IX. is ' an 
Italian.' ^ Beyond all doubt there is not one in the 
long line I have quoted who has loved Italy more than 
he. There is not one who had at heart more ardently 
the unity, freedom, and independence of Italy. His 
first act was to set free every political prisoner with a 
full pardon. By that act he showed that he recognised 
the misdirected love of country in those who had been 
seduced into false or unlawful ways of seeking the 
unity and the liberties of their country. 

In 1847 Pi^s IX. invited all the Princes of Italy to 

^ Exposttdatlon^ p. 49. 



True and False Pi'ogress. 141 

a League of Customs, by which the principle of Fede- 
ral Unity would have been established. From this 
germ the National Unity would have steadily grown 
up, without shock or overthrow of right or justice. 
Once confederated, there was no identity of interests, 
no unity of power, which might not have growm solid 
and mature. This and the Supreme Council for the 
Government of the Pontifical State are proof enough 
of his desire for Italian unity, and of the far-reaching 
foresight with which he aimed at the elevation of Italy. 
And as for Italian independence, let the following let- 
ter, written by himself to the Emperor of Austria on 
the 2nd of May, 1848, suffice: — 

* Your Imperial Majesty, this Holy See has been always 
wont to speak words of peace in the midst of the wars that 
stain the Christian world with blood ; and in our Allocution of 
the 29th of last month, while we declared that our paternal 
heart shrunk from declaring war, we expressly declared our 
ardent desire to restore peace. Let itnot be displeasing, there- 
fore, to your Majesty that we turn to your piety and religion, 
and exhort you with a flither's affection to withdraw your 
armies from a war which, while it cannot reconquer to the 
Empire the hearts of the Lombards and Venetians, draws after 
it the lamentable series of calamities that ever accompany 
warfare, and are assuredly abhorred and detested by you. 
Let it not be displeasing to the generous German peoi)le, tliat 
we invite them to lay aside all hatreds and to turn a domina- 
tion which could not be either noble or happy while it rests 
only on the sword, into the useful relations of friendly neigh- 
borhood. Thus we trust that the German nation, lionorably 
proud of its own nationality, ^vill not engage its honor in 
sanguinary attempts against the Italian nation, but will place 



142 Trite and False Progress, 

it rather in nobly acknowledging it as a sister, as indeed both 
nations are our daughters, and most dear to our heart; thereby 
mutually withdrawing to dwell each one in its natural boun- 
daries with honorable treaties and the benediction of the Lord. 
Meanwhile, we pray to the Giver of all lights and the Author 
of all good to inspire your Majesty with holy counsels, and 
give from our inmost heart to you and Her Majesty the Em- 
press, and to the Imperial family, the Apostolic benediction. 

' Given in Rome at Santa j\Iaria Maggiore, on the third 
day of May, in the year 1848, the second of our Pontificate. 

Pius PP. IX.' 

The following passage, from an impartial observer, 
will attest what were the intentions and desires of 
Pius IX. :— 

' The opposition of Austria has been constant and intense 
from the moment of his election. The spectacle of an Itahan 
Prince, relying for the maintenance of his power on the r.ffec- 
tionate regard and the national sympathies of his people : the 
resolution of the Pope to pursue a course of moderate reform, 
to encourage railroads, to emancipate the press, to admit lay- 
men to offices in the State, and to purify the law; but, above 
all, the dignified independence of action manifested by the 
Court of Rome, have filled the Austrians with exasperation and 
apprehension. There is not the least doubt that the Cabinet 
of Vienna is eager to grasp at the slightest pretext for an 
armed intervention south of the Po. If such a pretext do not 
occur, it is but too probable that it may be created ; and any 
disturbances calculated to lead to such a result would at once 
betray their insidious origin. Meanwhile, the Pope is menaced 
in Austrian notes, which have sometimes trangressed the limits 
of policy and decorum ; and the minor Princes of Italy are 
terrified by extravagant intimations of hostile designs enter- 
tained against them by the National Party, headed by the Pope 



True and False Progress. 143 

and the House of Savoy, in order to persuade them that their 
only safeguard is the Austrian army. These intrigues may be 
thought necessary to the defence of the tottering power of 
Austria south of the Alps, for every step made in advance by 
Italy is a step towards the emancipation of the country.' ^ 

But the evil genius of revolution had begun to 
work. Across the field of the Christian and Catholic 
traditions of Italy, a chimerical theory of a Communis- 
tic State, a Republic without Christianity, a democracy 
without King orlontiff, forced itself. 

Mazzini had been crying for years, * The Papacy is 
extinct, Catholicism is i corpse, and the Pope knows 

this Read the Evangelical Letter.' " He had 

taught Young Italy the three degrees, of Guerilla 
Bands, Insurrection, Revolution.^ The mine was 
charged and the fuse already lighted. This widespread 
Secret Association covered the face of Italy. What 
followed all men know : the murder of Rossi, the siege 
of the Quirinal Palace, the wreck of all authority, the 
Socialist Revolution, the Roman Republic, impunity 
of sacrilege, and a reign of terror. 

Now, let us suppose that in the period of our 
history, when the unity of the English people was grad- 
ually consolidating, some organised Apostleship of 
Socialism had begun to whisper in private and to preach 
in public such doctrines of conspiracy as these, and to 
teach that the people could never be free so long as 
King or Priest existed ; that all monarchical power 

^ Times ^ March 28, 1847. 

' Life and Writings of MazzirJ^ vol. i. p. 24 S. 

^ Ibid, p. io3, and Appendix, 1864. 



144 True and False Progress. 

and ecclesiastical authority were enemies of the pub- 
lic weal ; that the overthrow of the Monarchy and the 
extinction of the Church were the only remedies of 
present evils, the only means of future progress. Such 
a foreign element of discord, mistrust, conspiracy 
would have divided the hearts, intellects, and wills of 
the people of England, and rendered its unification 
impossible. The unity of religion in faith and wor- 
ship, the unity of the Spiritual authority which spoke 
to the reason and the will of men, was then, as it is at 
this hour, the only principle of unity. Without this, 
legislation is merely mechanical ; a dynamic power is 
wanted to bind men into one people. Our forefathers 
had it, and the English Monarchy of a thousand years 
is its fruit. The Italians have it at this hour in great 
vividness ; but Philosophers and Doctrinaires, Conspi- 
rators and Communists, are perverting the intellect 
and dividing the wills of the rising men of Italy. If 
such a conspiracy had crossed our early unification, we 
should have been, it may be, at this day, I will not say 
a Heptarchy, but assuredly a divided people, with a 
paralyzed national will. May God save Italy from 
this danger. It is not too late. It was said in an elo- 
quent speech, the other day, that a people which 
breaks with its past is doomed to division and to insta- 
bility. The rupture of France with its ancient tradi- 
tions in 1789 has generated the brood of political 
parties, which, from m.onth to month, thwart and 
defeat each other's action, like palsied limbs. If Italy 
should break with its past ; if it should forget the 
labours, and sufferings, and dangers which united its 
Pontiffs and its people in the wars of its independence, 



True and False Progress, 145 

freedom, and unity ; if it should forget the confedera- 
tions wrought by the Pontiffs, by v/hich they made all 
the divisions of Italy work together for the liberties of 
the whole Peninsula, from the Alps to its foot — then, 
indeed, I should despair of its future. It could have 
no other in store than a chronic warfare of parties, and 
the final sway of some successful soldier. 

Of the population of 26,000,000 Italians not three 
millions have launched themselves in the revolution of 
the last twenty years. The great bulk of the people 
are, as they have always been. Christian, Catholic, and 
loyal. The Electoral body who have votes to return 
the Italian Parliament do not exceed in number 
some half million. Of these hardly one-half record 
their vote. The Italian Deputies are, therefore, 
chosen by one-hundredth part of the population. 
The whole Chamber is, therefore, revolutionary, 
and may be divided into two parties — the mo- 
derate revolution and the extreme revolution. 
The Catholic voters abstain from all participation in 
such a state. They are not revolutionists, either ex- 
treme or moderate. They could elect no deputy but 
one of their own principles ; and no such deputy 
could sit, because to take his place he must bind 
himself by oath to the existing state of things, includ- 
ing, therefore, the violation of the sovereignty of the 
Pontiff. More than this, the existing state of the law 
has invaded the liberties and jurisdiction of the Church. 
It has abolished religious orders and institutions, it has 
harshly turned out their inmates upon a pittance, which, 
if paid,> would not suffice for food. It has confiscated 
property, seized upon colleges, abolished theology from 



146 Trite and False Progress, 

the universities, and the Christian doctrine from 
schools. And all this, be it remembered, not to meet 
the distracted state of a people who have lost their re- 
ligious unity, and must be provided with civil marriage 
and secular education, but in the midst of a population 
absolutely and universally- Catholic. This, and not 
v/hat Mr. Gladstone, with a strange want of accuracy, 
supposes, is what the Syllabus condemns. It nowhere 
condemns the civil policy which is necessary for a peo- 
ple hopelessly divided in religion. For us this may be 
a necessity. In Italy it is a doctrine of the Doctrin- 
aires. To force upon the united people of Italy that 
which is necessary for the divided people of England is 
a senseless legislation, and a mischievous breaking with 
the glorious past of Italy. I do not now stay to dwell 
upon the unpatriotic and un-Italian agitation of men 
who for twenty-five years have threatened Pius IX. 
with violence, and assailed him as the Vampire, the 
Canker, the Gangrene of Italy. Such men, from Aspro- 
m.onte to this day, have been the chief hindrance to the 
unification and pacification of Italy. And those who in 
this country have encouraged and abetted those agita- 
tors — not that they knew anything but that Garibaldi 
was fighting against the Pope — have been am.ong the 
worst friends of Italy ; I might say among the uncon- 
scious but most mischievous enemies. It is strange 
how this one taint of bigotry will pervert everything. 
Garibaldi was raising insurrection in Sicily and Naples 
against a lawful sovereign ; and those who put us now 
to question about our loyalty cheered and aided him by 
all moral influence. More than this, w^hen the leader of 
rebellion came to 'England he was received with royal 



True and FaUe p7^ogress. 147 

honours, and red carpets were spread for him at the 
threshold of aristocratic houses, until his name was 
found to be contagious. Then, in twenty-four hours he 
^Avas sped from England with the profuse facilities of de- 
parture which Avait upon an unwelcome guest. In my 
judgment — and I have formed it not in London from 
newspaper correspondents, but in Rome during many a 
long residence, extending in all over seven years — 
those who have encouraged this chronic agitation 
against the religion of Italians and the independence of 
Rome, have been among the chief causes of the present 
disorders of Italy. They could put no surer bar to its 
unity or to the solution of the Roman question which 
they confidently believe to be settled. They are 
keeping it open by encouraging the Government of 
the day to persist in quarrelling with the Catholic 
Church and with its Head. But this part of the sub- 
ject has outgrown its proportion. I return, therefore, 
to the proposition I set out to prove, — that by the col- 
lisions which now exist between the Civil Powers and 
the Church, tlie Governments of Europe are destroy- 
ing the main principle of their own stability. And I 
must add that they who are rekindling the old fires of 
religious discord in such an equal and tempered Com- 
monwealth as ours, seem to me to be serving neither 
God nor their country. 



148 Motive of the Definition. 

CHAPTER V. 

THE MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITION. 

My last proposition is that the motive of the Council 
of the Vatican for defining the InfallibiHty of the Ro- 
man Pontiff was not any temporal motive, nor was it for 
temporal ends ; but that the Definition w^as made in 
the face of all temporal dangers, in order to guard the 
Divine deposit of Christianity, and to vindicate the 
Divine certainty of Faith. 

I have read many things in Mr. Gladstone's pamph- 
let which are unlike himself, but none seems more so 
to me than this question, * Why did that Court, with 
policy for ever in its eye, lodge such formidable de- 
mands for power of the vulgar kind in that sphere 
which is visible, and where hard knocks can undoubt- 
edly be given as well as received ? ' ^ 

Would it not have been more seemly and more dig- 
nified if the question had been couched in some 
such words as these : ' Why has the Catholic Church, 
in a moment of great peril, when a revolution is at 
the gates of Rome, and the Civil Powers of the world 
are uniting, not only to forsake it, but even to 
threaten it with opposition — why has it at such a time, 
in spite of every inducement of policy, and every mo- 
tive of interest, and in defiance of every pleading of 
worldly wisdom, persisted in defining the Infallibility 

^ Expostulaiiojjy p. 47. 



Motive of the Definition. 149 

of the Pope — a doctrine which is sure to bring down 
upon the Church the animosities of all its enemies with- 
out, and the conspiracies of all its faithless members 
within?* Even Mr. Gladstone can see that this was 
most impolitic. Why, then, will he accuse the Church 
of always having a policy in its eye ? By his own con- 
fession it is not always so : for he is witness that it is 
not so in this case. Why, then, would he not say so? 
I will gladly answer the question he has put. 

The reasons, then, why the Infallibility of the Ro- 
man Pontiff ought to be defined were publicly stated 
as follows, in 1869, before the Vatican Council met; 
and some or all of them, I believe, prevailed in deter- 
mining the, Council to make that definition: — 

* Those who maintain that the time is ripe, and that 
such a definition would be opportune, justify their 
opinion on the following reasons: — 

' I. Because the doctrine of the Infallibility of the 
Vicar of Jesus Christ, speaking ex catliedra^ in matter 
of faith and morals, is true. 

* 2. Because this truth has been denied. 

* 3. Because this denial has generated extensive 
doubt as to the truth of this doctrine, which lies at the 
root of the immemorial and universal practice of the 
Church, and therefore at the foundation of Christianity 
in the world. 

* 4. Because this denial, if it arose informally about 
tlie time of the Council of Constance, has been revived, 
and has grown into a formal and public error since the 
closing of the last General Council. 

* 5- Because, if the next General Council shall pass 
it over, the error will henceforward appear to be toler- 



150 Motive of the Definiiion. 

ated, or at least left in impunity ; and the Pontifical 
censures of Innocent XL, Alexander VIII., Innocent 
XII., and Pius VI. will appear to be of doubtful effect. 

* 6. Because this denial of the traditional belief of 
the Church is not a private, literary, and scholastic 
opinion ; but a patent, active, and organised opposition 
to the prerogatives of the Holy See. ' 

' 7. Because this erroneous opinion has gravely en- 
feebled the doctrinal authority of the Church in the 
minds of a certain number of the faithful ; and if 
passed over in impunity, this ill effect v/ill be still fur- 
ther encouraged. 

* 8. Because this erroneous opinion has at times 
caused and kept open a theological and practical divi- 
sion among pastors and people ; and has given occasion 
to domestic criticisms, mistrusts, animosities, and alien- 
ations. 

*9. Because these divisions tend to. paralyse the 
action of truth upon the minds of the faithful ad intra ; 
and, consequently, by giving a false appearance of di- 
vision and doubt among Catholics, upon the minds of 
Protestants and others ad extra. 

* 10. Because, as the absence of a definition gives 
occasion for these separations and oppositions of 
opinion among pastors and people, so, if defined, the 
doctrine would become a basis and a bond of unity 
among the faithful. 

* II. Because, if defined in an CEcumenical Council, 
the doctrine would be at once received throughout the 
world, both by those who believe the Infallibility of 
the Pontiff and by those who believe the Infallibility 
of the Church, and with the same universal joy and 



Motive of the Definition. 151 

unanimity as the definition of the Immaculate Con- 
ception. 

* 12. Because the definition of the ordinary means 
whereby the faith is proposed to the world is required 
to complete the treatise *' De Fide Divina/' 

* 13. Because the same definition is required to 
complete the treatise '' De Ecclesia, deque Dotibus 
ejus." 

* 14. Because it is needed to place the Pontifical 
Acts during the last three hundred years, both in de- 
claring the truth, as in the dogma of the Immaculate 
Conception, and in condemning errors, as in the long 
series of propositions condemned in Baius, Jansenius, 
and others, beyond cavil or question ; and still more, 
to make manifest that the active Infallibility of the 
Church, between council and council, is not dormant, 
suspended, or intermittent; and to exclude the hereti- 
cal supposition that infallible decrees are left to the 
exposition and interpretation of a fallible judge. 

* 15. Because the full and final declaration of the 
divine authority of the Head of the Church is needed 
to exclude' from the minds of pastors and faithful the 
political influences which have generated Gallicanism, 
Imperialism, Regalism, and Nationalism, the perennial 
sources of error, contention, and schism. 

* For these, and for many more reasons which it is 
impossible now to detail, many believe that a defini- 
tion or declaration which would terminate this long 
and pernicious question; would be opportune ; and 
that it might for ever be set at rest by the condemna- 
tion of the propositions following: — 

' r. Tliat the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs in mat- 



152 Motive of the Definition. 

ter of faith and morals do not oblige the conscience 
unless they be made in a General Council, or before 
they obtain at least the tacit consent of the Church. 

. * 2. That the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks in 
matter of faith and morals, as the universal Doctor 
and Teacher of the Church, may err.' ^ 

I will now, as briefly as I can, state what the Defi- 
nition is. The greater part of the excitement and 
alarm on this subject arises from a want of just and 
clear perception of Avhat the doctrine of Infallibility 
signifies. 

* The fourth and last chapter of the *' Constitution 
on the Church '* defines the infallible doctrinal au- 
thority of the Roman Pontiff as the supreme teacher 
of all Christians. 

* The chapter opens by affirming that to this su- 
preme jurisdiction is attached a proportionate grace, 
whereby its exercise is directed and sustained. 

'This truth has been traditionally held and taught 
by the Holy See, by \.\\^ praxis of the Church, and by 
the CEcumenical Councils, especially those in which the 
East and the West met in union together; as, for in- 
stance, the fourth of Constantinople, the second of 
Lyons, and the Council of Florence. 

* It is then declared that, in virtue of the promise 
of our Lord, '* I have prayed for thee, that thy faith 
fail not," '"^ a perpetual grace of stability in faith was 
Divinely attached to Peter and to his successors in his 
See. 



^ PctH Piivileghwt^ part ii. pp. 119-122. (Longmans, 1869.) 
- St. Luke xxii. 31, 32. 



Motive of the Defuiition. 153 

* The definition then affirms '' that the Roman Pon- 
tiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in dis- 
charge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Chris- 
tians, by virtue of his supreme ApostoHc authority, he 
defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held 
by the Universal Church — by the Divine assistance 
promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that 
Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed 
that His Church should be endowed for defining 
doctrine regarding faith and morals ; and that, there- 
fore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irre- 
formable of themselves, and not from the consent of 
the Church. 

* In this definition there are six points to be noted : 

* First, it defines the meaning of the well-known 
phrase, loqtcens ex cathedra ; that is, speaking from the 
seat, or place, or with the authority of, the supreme 
teacher of all Christians, and binding the assent of the 
Universal Church. 

* Secondly, the subject-matter of his infallible teach- 
ing ; namely, the doctrine of faith and morals. 

* Thirdly, the efficient cause of Infallibility ; that is, 
the Divine assistance promised to Peter, and in Peter 
to his successors. 

* Fourthly, the act to which this Divine assistance is 
attached ; namely, the defining of doctrines of faith and 
morals. 

*• Fifthly, the extension of this infiilliblc authority 
to the limits of the doctrinal office of the Church. 

* Lastly, the dogmatic value of the definitions ex 
cathedra ; namely, that they arc in themselves irre- 
formable, because in themselves infallible, and not 



1 54 Motive of t!ie Definition, 

because the Church, or any part or member of the 
Church, should assent to them. 

* These six points contain the whole definition of 
Infallibility. 

* I. First, the definition limits the Infallibility of 
the Pontiff to the acts which emanate from him ex 
cathedra. This phrase, which has been long and com- 
monly used by theologians, has now, for the first time, 
been adopted into the terminology of the Church, and 
in adopting it the Vatican Council fixes its meaning. 
The Pontiff speaks ex cathedra when, and only when, 
he speaks as the Pastor and Doctor of all Christians. 
By this all acts of the Pontiff as a private person, or a 
private doctor, or as a local bishop, or as sovereign of 
a State, are excluded.^ In all these acts the Pontiff 
may be subject to error. In one and one only capacity 
he is exempt from error; that is, when, as teacher of 
the w^hole Church, he teaches the whole Church in 
things of faith and morals. 

^ Our Lord declared "^ Super Cathedram Moysi sede- 
runt Scribse et Pharissi — the Scribes and Pharisees 
have sat in the chair of Moses.'' The seat or cathedra 
of Moses signifies the authority and the doctrine of 
Moses ; the cathedra Petri is in like manner the autho- 

^ Cardinal Sfondrati, writing in 1684, explained this truth as fol- 
lows : — * The Pontiff does some things as man, some as prince, some 
as doctor, some as pope ; that is, as head and foundation of the 
Church ; and it is only to these (last-named) actions that we attribute 
the gift of Infallibility. The others we leave to his human condition. 
As, then, not every action of the Pope is papal, so not every action of 
the Pope enjoys the papal privilege. This, therefore, is to act as Pon- 
tiff, and to speak ex cathedra, which is not within the competency of 
apy (other) doctor or bishop.' — Regale Sqcerclotlum, lib. iii. sec, i. 



Motive of the Definitioii. 155 

rity and doctrine of Peter. The former was binding 
by Divine command, and under pain of sin, upon the 
people of God under the Old Law ; the latter is binding 
by Divine command, and under pain of sin, upon the 
people of God under the New. 

' I need not here draw out the traditional use of the 
term cathedra Petj^i, which in St. Cyprian, St. Optatus, 
and St. Augustine, is em.ployed as synonymous with 
the successor of Peter, and is used to express the cen- 
tre and test of Catholic unity. Ex cathedra is there- 
fore equivalent to ex cathedra Petri, and distinguishes 
those acts of the successors of Peter which are done as 
supreme teacher of the whole Church. 

^ The value of this phrase is great, inasmuch as it 
excludes all cavil and equivocation as to the acts of 
the Pontiff in any other capacity than that of supreme 
Doctor of all Christians, and in any other subject- 
matter than the matters of faith and morals. 

* II. Secondly, the definition limits the range, or, to 
speak exactly, the object of Infallibility, to the doc- 
trine of faith and morals. It excludes, therefore, all 
other matter wdiatsoever. 

* The great commission or charter of the Church is, 
in the words of our Lord, *^ Go ye therefore and teach 
all nations .... teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you ; and behold I am 
with you all days, even to the consummation of the 
world.? ^ 

* In these words are contained five points : 

* First, the perpetuity and universality of the mis- 
sion of the Church as t'he teacher of mankind. 

' St. INIalt. xxviii. 19, 20 



156 Motive of the Definitio7i. 

* Secondly, the deposit of the Truth and of the Com- 
mandments, that is, of the Divine Faith an3 Law en- 
trusted to the Church. 

* Thirdly, the office of the Church, as the sole inter- 
preter of the Faith and of the Law. 

' Fourthly, that it has the sole Divine jurisdiction 
existing upon earth, in matters of salvation, over the 
reason and the will of man. 

* Fifthly, that, in the discharge of this office, our 
Lord is with His Church always,^and to the consum- 
mation of the world. 

* The doctrine of faith and the doctrine of morals 
are here explicitly described. The Church is infallible 
in this deposit of revelation. 

* And in this deposit are truths and morals both of 
the natural and of the supernatural order ; for the reli- 
gious truths and morals of the natural order are taken 
up into the revelation of the order of grace, and form 
a part of the object of Infallibility. 

' The phrase, then, *^ faith and morals '' signifies the 
whole revelation of faith ; the whole way of salvation 
through faith ; or the whole supernatural order, with 
all that is essential to the sanctification and salvation of 
man through Jesus Christ. 

* This formula is variously expressed by the Church 
and by theologians ; but it always means one and the 
same thing. 

' The Fourteenth CEcumenical Council of Lyons in 
I274says, '' If any questions arise concerning faith, they 
are to be decided by the Roman Pontiff.'^ ^ 

* * Si qu3C subortae fuerint quaestiones de fide, suo (i.e. Rom. Pont.) 
debent judicio definiri.' — Labbe, Condi, torn. xiv. p. 512, Venice, 1731. 



Motive of the Definition. 157 

^ The Council of Trent uses the formula *' In thin^rs 
of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Chris- 
tian doctrine/' ^ . . . . 

* The object of Infallibility, therefore, is the whole 
revealed Word of God ; and all that is so in contact 
with revealed truth, that without treating of it the 
Word of God could not be guarded, expounded, and 
defended! As, for instance, in declaring the Canon, 
and authenticity, and true interpretation of Holy Scrip- 
ture, and the like. 

' Further, it is clear that the Church has an infallible 
guidance, not only in all matters that are revealed, but 
also in all matters which are opposed to revelation. 
For the Church could not discharge its office as the 
Teacher of all nations, unless it were able with infallible 
certainty to proscribe doctrines at variance with the 
Word of God. 

* From this, again, it follows that the direct object 
of Infallibility is the Revelation, or Word, of God ; 
the indirect object is whatsoever is necessary for its 
exposition or defence, and whatsoever is contrariant 
to the Word of God, that is, to faith and morals. The 
Church, having a. Divine office to condemn errors in 
faith and morals, has therefore an infallible assistance 
in discerning and proscribing false philosophies aiul 
false science.*^ . . . 

* * In rebus fidei et morum ad sedificationem doctrinx ChristiaivrR 
pertiiientium.' — Sess. iv. Decret. de Edit, et Usii Sac. Lib, 

'■^ ' Further, the Church, which, together with the Apostolic olficc 
of teaching, has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, derives 
froip God the right and the duty of proscribing false science, lest any 
should be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit (Coloss. ii. 8).' — 
Constitution 0)1 the CatJiolic Faith, chap. iv. * Of Faith and Reason.* 



158 Mo live of the Definitior.. 

* I will not here attempt to enumerate the subject 
matters which fall within the limits of the Infallibility 
of the Church. It belongs to the Church alone to de- 
termine the limits of its own Infallibility. Hitherto it 
has not done so except by its acts, and from the prac- 
tice of the Church we may infer to what matter its in- 
fallible discernment extends. It is enough for the pre- 
sent to show two things : — 

* Firstly, that the Infallibility of the Church extends, 
as we have seen, directly to the whole matter of re- 
vealed truth, and indirectly to all truths which, though 
not revealed, are in such contact v/ith revelation that 
the deposit of faith and morals cannot be guarded, ex- 
pounded, and defended without an infallible discern- 
ment of such unrevealed truths. 

^ Secondly, that this extension of the Infallibility of 
the Church is, by the unanimous teaching of all theolo- 
gians, at least theologically certain; and, in the judg- 
ment of the majority of theologians, certain by the 
certainty of faith. 

* Such is the traditional doctrine respecting the In- 
fallibility of the Church in faith and morals. By the 
definition of the Vatican Council, what is traditionally 
believed by all the faithful in respect to the Church is 
expressly declared of the Roman Pontiff. But the de- 
finition of the extent of that Infallibility, and of the 
certainty on which it rests, in matters not revealed, has 
not been treated as yet, but is left for the second part 
of the ScJie7na de E celesta. 

* Again, the definition declares the efficient cause of 
Infallibility to be a Divine assistance promised to Peter 
and in Peter to his successors. 



Motive of the Definition. 159 

*The explicit promise is that of our Divine Lord to 
Peter, *^ I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail 
not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy 
brethren." ^ 

' The implicit promise is in the words, *^ On this 
rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it/' ^ . . . 

^ The Divine assistance is therefore a charisma, a 
grace of the supernatural order, attached to the Pri- 
macy of Peter, which is perpetual in his successors. 

* I need hardly point out that between the charisma^ 
or gratia gratis data^ of Infallibility and the idea of 
impeccability there is no connection. I should not so 
much as notice it, if some had not strangely obscured 
the subject by introducing this confusion. I should 
have thought that the gift of prophecy in Balaam and 
Caiaphas, to say nothing of the powers of the priest- 
hood, which are the same in good and bad alike, 
would have been enough to make such confusion 
impossible. 

^ The preface to the Definition carefully. lays down 
that Infallibility is not inspiration. 

* The Divine assistance by which the Pontiff arc 
guarded from error, when as Pontiffs they teach in 
matters of faith and morals, contains no new revelation. 
Inspiration contained, not only assistance in writing, 
but sometimes the suggestion of truths not otherwise 
known. The Pontiffs are witnesses, teachers, and 
judges of the revelation already given to the Church ; 
and in guarding, expounding, and defending that reve- 

' St. r.ukc xxii. 32. ' St. Matt. xvi. i8. 



i6o Motive of the Dcfinitio7i. 

lation, their witness, teaching, and judgment are by 
Divine assistance preserved from error/ ^ 

I will now answer Mr. Gladstone's question — why 
the Definition was made. The Vatican Council, then, 
defined the Infallibility of the Head of the Church, 
because, if it had failed to do so, the doctrinal authority 
of the Church w^ould have been weakened throughout 
the world. Every motive of worldly policy would have 
tempted the Council to compromise, and to shrink from 
defining it ; but the peremptory obligations of Divine 
Truth compelled it in defiance of all policy to define it. 
Necessity was laid upon the Council, and it could not 
recede. Universal doubt and scepticism are pervading 
men and nations : therefore the Church defined the In- 
fallibility of its Head, which is the confirmation of its 
own. As a Divine witness, it declared his commission, 
and the powers given for its exercise. The Vicar of 
Jesus Christ testified to the world, wearied with doubt 
and sick with religious contentions, that the promise 
of his Master, * He that heareth you heareth Me,' has 
not failed. The definition of the Infallible teaching of 
the Church by its Head affirms that there is still a 
divine certainty of faith upon earth ; and that, as God 
is the sole Fountain of all Truth, so the Church is the 
only channel of its conveyance and custody among 
men. No other policy prompted the Definition. And 
even though the combined hostility of Civil Powers, as 
we now see it, had been heated sevenfold hot before 
its eyes, the Council would not have swerved from de- 

^ Petri Fiivllegiwn, part iii. pp. 56-60, 66, 78, 84. (Longmans 
1870.) 



Motive of the DeJi7iitio7i. i6i 

daring, whether politic or not, the truth delivered to 
its charge. If I speak without hesitation, it is because 
I am able to speak of that which I saw Avith my own 
eyes, and heard with my own ears 

I hope I shall not violate any confidence which 
ought to be sacred, or any reserve the delicacy of w^hich 
I fully recognise, in going on to state a fact of which I 
am able to give personal testimony. 

One day, during the deliberations of the Council, 
when the pressure of Diplomatists, and Governments, 
and journals was at its highest, the Holy Father said, 
* I have just been warned that if the Council shall per- 
sist in making this definition, the protection of the 
French army will be withdrawn.' After a pause he 
added, with great calmness, * As if the unworthy Vicar 
of Jesus Christ could be swayed by such motives as 
these.* I can with perfect certainty afifirm that * policy ' 
had as little influence on the Council of the Vatican as 
it had on the Council of Nicaea ; and that to ascribe 
the Definition to policy is as strange an aberration of 
judgment as to ascribe to the Definition the occupation 
of Rome, or the Franco-German war to the Jesuits and 
to the Pope. When men say these things, can they 
believe them ? 

It needs but little of the historic spirit to perceive 
that if the Vatican Council, for such motives as these, 
ought to have abstained from defining the Infallibility 
of the Head of the Christian Church, the Council of 
Nicaea ought also to have abstained from defining the 
Hojndoicsion. There was violence all round about it. 
There was the certainty of a schism. After the Coun- 
cil eighty Bishops apostatised. They appealed, as all 



1 62 Motive of the Definitioit. 

heretics ever do, to the Civil Powers. The Arian 
Schism Vv-as formed ; it was protected by Emperor after 
Emperor. Arianism became a State tool against the 
Catholic Church. It infected Constantinople ; it spread 
into Italy and Spain ; it lasted for centuries. But 
where is it now ? And where now is the Creed of Ni- 
C3ea ? The Homootision is at this day in the heart of 
the whole Church throughout the w^orld. ^ So will it be 
Vv'ith the Council of the Vatican. What the Council 
of Florence implicitly declared, and the Council of 
Trent assumed as- of faith, that the Council of the 
Vatican explicitly defined. It is very true that since 
the Council of Constance, that is, since the great 
schism of the West, when the Civil powers of Europe, 
for a time, shook the visible unity of the Church by 
endeavouring to lessen the authority of its Head, the 
power of the Roman Pontiff has steadily consolidated 
itself, in the intellect and the will of the Church. What 
was believed from the beginning has been nov/ forced 
.into explicit declaration. But while the Church has 
thus been more and more defining its faith with a 
Divine precision, the w^orld has wandered ofif farther 
and farther into the Vv^'-ilderness of unbelief. The 
Council of Trent defined the particular doctrines 
denied by Luther's Reformation. But it did not 
deal with the master principle on w^hich it rested. 
The chief character of the sixteenth century w^as the 
denial of the Divine authority 'of the Church, secured 
to it in virtue of a perpetual assistance of the Spirit 
of Truth. Three hundred years have unfolded the 
consequences of this denial. It is nearly complete in 
the rationalism and infidelity of Germany. The * Cen- 



Motive of the Defijiition. 163 

tuna priErogativa * has a mournful privilege of prece- 
dence in the Comitia of unbelievers. It has run its 
course, too, in Switzerland ; and Imust add, with sad- 
ness, it is running its course in the widespread doubt 
which is undermining the Christianity of England. Day- 
after day I hear the words, * I wish I knew what to be- 
lieve, and why to believe anything:* and this from 
some of the noblest and most masculine natures, who 
recoil from the incoherence and contradiction of teach- 
ers who gainsay one another. But here is a subject on 
which I have no desire to enter. If I were asked to 
say what is the chief intellectual malady of England 
and of the world at this day, I should say, ubiquitous, 
universal doubt, an uncertainty which came in like a 
flood after the rejection of the Divine certainty of Faith. 
This uncertainty has already led multitudes to an en- 
tire rejection of Christianity ; and they have not rested 
even in Deism. They have gone on to the rejection 
even of natural religion. They have no certainty that 
they have a conscience, or a will, or a soul, or a law of 
morality, or that there is a God. Three hundred years 
hence, when men look back upon the Council of the 
Vatican, as they now look back upon the Council of 
Trent — I will say even thirty years hence, when the 
noise and dust of the present conflict is laid, — they who 
have faith left in them will recognise the Divine guid- 
ance under which the Council of the Vatican declared 
the existence of God, with all the truths radiating from 
it, as resting upon the witness of the visible world ; and 
also the Divine certainty of the Faith, as resting upon 
the witness of the Visible Church, and finding its per- 



164 Motive of the Definitio7i. 

petual and infallible expression in the voice of its Visi- 
ble Head. 

But it is now more than time to sum up what I hope 
has been sufficiently proved. 

My first answer to the charge that the Vatican Coun- 
cil has made it impossible for Catholics to render a 
loyal civil allegiance, is that the Vatican Council has not 
touched our civil allegiance at all ; that the laws which 
govern our civil allegiance are as old as the revelation 
of Christianity, and are regulated by the Divine consti- 
tution of the Church and the immutable duties of natu- 
ral morality. We were bound by all these obligations 
before the Vatican Council existed. They are of 
Divine institution, and are beyond all change, being in 
themselves unchangeable. I have shown, I hope, that 
in the conflicts of the Civil Powers with the Church, the 
causes have arisen, not from acts of the Church, but 
from such acts as the Constitutions of Clarendon, the 
claim of Investitures, the creation of Royal Courts 
of final appeal, and the like ; that these in- 
vasions of the Spiritual domain ever have been 
from the attempts of Governments to subject 
the Church to their own jurisdiction ; and now 
more than ever, from an universal and simultaneous 
conspiracy against it. A leader of this conspiracy said 
the other day, * The net is now drawn so close about 
the Church of Rome that if it escape this time I will 
, believe it to be Divine.* If God grant him life, I have 
\hope of his conversion. For, that the Church of Rome 
will escape out of the net is certain, and that for two 
reasons: first, for the same reason why its Divine Head 
rose again from the grave — ' it was not possible that 



Motive of the Definition. 165 

He should be holden by it;'/ and next, because the 
Civil Governments, that are now conspiring against it, 
are preparing for their own dissolution. Finally, I 
have given the true and evident reason why, when 
some six hundred Bishops from the ends of the Church 
were gathered together, they defined the Infallibility 
of their Head — ' Visum est Spiritid Sancto ct nobis' 

^ Acts ii. 24. 



1 66 Conchtsion. 



CONCLUSION. 

AxD now there only remains for me the hardest and 
saddest part of the task, which has not been sought by 
m^e, but has been forced upon me. A few months ago 
I could not have believed that I should have ever 
written these pages. I have never written any with 
miore pain, and none of them have cost me so much as 
tliat which I am about to write. 

Thus far I have endeavoured to confine myself to 
the subject- m^atter of' Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet ; but 
before I end, I feel bound by an imperative duty to lay 
before him, in behalf of his Catholic fellow-country- 
nien, the nature of the act v/hicli he has done. 

He has not only invited, but instigated Catholics to 
rise against the Divine authority of the Catholic 
Church. He has endeavoured to create divisions 
among them. If Mr. Gladstone does not believe the 
authority of the Catholic Church to be Divine, he 
knows that they do. 

If he thinks such a rising to be * moral and mental 
freedom,' he knows that they beheve it to be what his 
own Litany calls • schism, heresy, and deadly sin.' If 
he believes religious separations to be lawful, he knows 
that they believe them to be violations of the Divine 
law. I am compelled therefore to say that this is at 
least an act of signal rashness. 

No man has watched Mr. Gladstone's career as a 
statesman Vv'ith a more q-enerous and disinterested 



Co7tcltiszon. 167 

good-v/ill than I have. No one has more gladly appro 
ciated his gifts ; no one has more equitably interpreted 
certain acts of his political life, nor has hailed his suc- 
cesses with greater joy. But when he casts off the 
character of a statesman, for which he has shown so 
great capacity, to play the Canonist and Theologian, 
for v/hich he has here shown so little, and that with 
the intent of sowing discord and animosities among six 
millions of his fellow-countrymen — and, I must more- 
over add, with an indulgence of unchastened language 
rarely to be equalled — I feel bound to say that he has 
been betrayed into an act for which I can find no ade- 
quate excuse. I must tell him that if he would incline 
the Catholics of the Empire to accept the ministries 
of his compassion, he must first purify his style both 
of writing and of thinking. Catholics are not to be 
convinced or persuaded by such phrases as * the present 
perilous Pontificate ; ' * the Papal chair, its aiders and 
abettors ; ' * the great hierarchic power and those who 
have egged it on ; * ' the present degradation of the 
Episcopal order ; ' ^ the subserviency or pliabihty of 
the Council ; ' * hideous mummies ; * * head-quarters ; ' 
* the follies of Ecclesiastical power ; ' * foreign arro- 
gance ; ' * the myrmidons of the Apostolic Chamber ; ' 
'the foreign influence of a caste.' I transcribe these 
v/ords from liis pages with repugnance; not, indeed, 
for our sake against whom they are levelled, but for 
the statesman who has thought them fitting. Mr. 
Gladstone can do many tilings; but he cannot do all 
things. lie has a strong hand; but there is a bow 
which he cannot bend, lie has here tried his haiul at 
a task for which, v/ithout something more than mere 



1 68 Conclusion. 

literary knowledge, even his varied gifts will not suffice. 
This Expostulation is, as I have already said, an act 
out of all harmony and proportion with a great states- 
man's life. 

I have wTitten these words with a painful con- 
straint ; but, cost what it may, duty must be done, and 
I believe it to be my duty to record this judgment, in 
behalf of the Catholics of this country, on an act unjust 
in itself, and therefore not only barren of all good re- 
sult, but charged with grave public dangers. 

But, I cannot break off with a note so cheerless. 
If this Expostulation has cast down many hopes both 
of a public and a private kind, we cannot altogether 
regret its publication. If such mistrusts and miscon- 
ceptions existed in the minds of our fellow-subjects 
the sooner and the more openly they were made public 
the better. We are not content to be tolerated as 
suspect or dangerous persons, or to be set at large 
upon good behaviour. We thank Mr. Gladstone 
for gaining us the hearing which we have had before 
the public justice of our country ; and we are 
confident that his impeachment will be withdrawn. 
His own mind is too large, too just, and too upright to 
refuse to aicknowledge an error, when he sees that he 
has been misled. It is also too clear and too accurate 
not to perceive that such is now the fact. I see in 
this the augury of a happier and more peaceful future 
than if this momentary conflict had never arisen. We 
shall all understand each other better. Our civil and 
religious peace at home will be firmer by this trial. 

If the great German Empire shall only learn in 
time, thirteen millions of contented Catholic subjects, 



Conchtsion, 169 

reconciled as they still may be by a return of just laws, 
will giv^e a support to its unity which nothing can 
shake. 

If Italy shall only come to see that the * Roman 
question ' is, and for ever will be, a source of weakness, 
contention, and danger to its welfare ; and, seeing this, 
shall solve it peacefully, as Italy alone can do, by un- 
doing its un-Catholic and therefore un-Italian policy, 
then its unity and independence will be secured by 
the spontaneous co-operation of a united people, 
gathered around the centre of all its Christian glories. 
Such a solution would then be consecrated by the 
highest sanctions of its faich. If wise counsels prevail, 
and wise friends of Italy shall gain its ear, it may be 
again what once it was, the foremost people in the 
Christian world. 

And, lastly, for ourselves, our world-wide Empire 
cannot turn back upon its path without disintegration. 
It is bound together, not by material force, but by the 
moral bond of just laws and the glad consent of a 
free people. But justice and freedom cannot be put 
asunder. They flow from one source; they can be 
kept pure only by the same stream. They haye come 
down to us from our Christianity. Divided as we are, 
we are a Christian people still. By religious conflict 
our Christianity will waste away as a moth fretting a 
garment. By religious peace, all that is true, and wise, 
and just, and Christian, will be perpetually multiplied, 
binding indissolubly in one all men and all races of 
our Imperial Commonwealth. 



APPENDICES. 



APPENDIX A. 

InNOCENTIUS III. PiLELATIS PER FrANCIAM CONSTITUTIS. A.D. 1200. 

NoviT Ille, qui nihil ignorat : et infra, 

Non putet aliquis, quod jurisdictionem illustris Regis Francorum 
perturbare, aut minuere intendamus, cum ipse jurisdictionem nostram 
nee velit, nee debeat impedire. Sed cum Dominus dicat in Evan- 
gelio, * Si peccaverit in te frater tuus, vade et corripe eum inter te et 
ipsum solum : si te audierit, lucratus eris fratrem tuum ; si te non 
andierit, adhibe tecum unum vel duos, ut in ore duorum vel trium 
testium stet omne verbum. Quod si te non audierit, die Ecclesias : 
si autem Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut ethnicus et publica- 
nus. ' ^ Et Rex Anglias sit paratus sufficienter ostendere, quod Rex 
Francorum peccat in ipsum, et ipse circa eum in correctione processit 
secundum regulam Evangelicam, et tandem quia nullo modo profecit, 
dixit Ecclesiae. Quomodo nos, qui sumus ad regimen universalis 
Ecclesiae superna dispositione vocati, mandatum divinum possumus 
non exaudire, ut non procedamus secundum formam ipsius? Nisi 
forsitan ipse coram nobis, vel Legato nostro, sufllcicntem in contra- 
rium rationem ostendat. Non enim iniendinius judlcare de feudo, cujtis 
ad ipsum spectat judicium : nisi forte jure communi per speciale privi- 
legium, vel contrariam consuetudinem aliquid sit detractum : sed de- 
cern ere de peccaio^ cujus ad 7ws pertinct sine dubitatione censura, qnam in 

quemlibct ex ere ere possumus et deb emus Cum enim non 

humanx constitutioni, sed divinae potius innitamur, quia potestas 
nostra non est ex homine, sed ex Deo, nullus qui sit sanae mentis 
ignorat, quin ad ofiicium nostrum spectet de quocunque mortal i pec- 
cato corripcre quemlibet Christianum : et si corrcctioncm contemp- 
serit, per districtioncm ccclcsiasticam cocrccre. Sed forsan dicetur, 

• Matt xvili. 15-17. 
171 



172 Appe^idices. 

quod aliter cum regibus et aliter cum aliis est agendum. Caeterum 
scriptum novimus in lege divina: ' Ita magnum judicabis ut parvum ; 
nee erit apud te acceptio personarum.' ^ — Corpus Juris Canonici, 
JDecret. Gregor, lib. ii. tit. i. cap. xiii. 

BONIFACIUS VIIL, AD PERPETUAM FvEI MeMORIAM, A.D. I302. 

Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam et ipsam Apostolicam ur- 
gente fide credere cogimur et tenere. Nosque hanc firmiter credimus 
et simpliciter confitemur: extra quam nee salus est, nee remissio 
peccatorum, Sponso in Canticis proclamante, * Una est columba 
mea, perfecta mea: una est matri suse, electa genitrici suae:''^ 
quse unum corpus mysticum repra^sentat, cujus caput Christus, 
Christi vero Deus. In qua unus Dominus, una fides, unum bap- 
tisma.^ Una nempe fuit Diluvii tempore area Noe, unam Ecclesiam 
prsefigurans, quae in uno cubito consummata/ unum, Noe videlicet, 
gubernatorem habuit et rectorem, extra quam omnis subsistentia 
super terram legimus fuisse deleta. Hanc autem veneramur et 
unicam ; dicente Domino in Propheta, 'Erue a framea, Deus, animam 
meam et de manu canis unicam meam ;'^ pro anima enim, id est, pro 
seipso capite simul oravit et corpore : quod corpus unicam scilicet 
Ecclesiam nominavit, propter sponsi, fidei, sacramentorum et chari- 
tatis Ecclesiae unitatem. Haec est tunica ilia Domini inconsutilis,^' 
quae scissa non fuit sed sorte provenit. Igitur Ecclesiae unius ct 
unicas unum corpus, unum caput, non duo capita quasi monstrum, 
Christus videlicet, et Christi vicarius Petrus Petrique successor; 
dicente Domino ipsi Petro, * Pasce oves meas,' ' * meas,' inquit, et ge- 
neraliter non singulariter has vel illas, per quod commisisse sibi intel- 
ligitur universas. Sive ergo Graeci, sive alii se dicant Petro ej usque 
successoribus non esse commissos, fateantur necesse se de ovibus 
Christi non esse ; dicente Domino in Joanne * unum ovile et unicum 
esse pastorem.' ^ In hac ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritu- 
alcm videlicet et temporalem, Evangelicis dictis instruimur. Nam 
dicentibus Apostolis, * Ecce gladii duo hie,' ^ in Ecclesia scilicet, 
cum Apostoli loquerentur, non respondit Dominus nimis esse sed 
satis. Certe qui in potestate Petri temporalem gladium esse negat, 
male verbum attendit Domini proferentis, * Converte gladium tuum 
in vaginam.*^° Uterque ergo est in potestate Ecclesiae, spiritualis 

* Deut. 1, 17. - Cant. vi. 8. ^ Eph. iv. 5. * Gen. vi. 16. 

^ Psalm xxi. 21. ^ Joann. xix. 23, 24. ' Joann. xxi. 17. 

^ Jcann. x. 16. ^ Luc. xxii. 30. ^^ Matt. xxvi. 52. 



'Appendices. i 



/o 



scilicet giadius et materialis. Sed is quidem pro Ecclesia, ille veio 
ab Ecclesia exercendus. Ille sacerdotis, is inanu regum et militum, 
sed ad nutum et patientiam sacerdotis. Oportet autem gladium esse 
sub gladio et temporalem auctoritatem spirituali subjici potestati : 
nam cum dicat Apostolus, * Non est potestas nisi a Deo, quae autem 
sunt a Deo ordinata sunt:'^ non autem ordinata cssent, nisi giadius 
esset sub gladio, et tanquam inferior reduceretur per alium in su- 
prema. Nam secundum beatum Dionysium, lex divinitaiis est, in- 
fima per media in suprema reduci. Non ergo secundum ordinem 
universi omnia seque ac immediate, sed infima per media et inferiora 
per superiora ad ordinem reducuntur. Spiritualem autem et dignitate 
et nobilitate terrenam quamlibet praecellere potestatem, oportet tanto 
clarius nos fateri quanto spiritualia temporalia antecellunt. Quod 
etiam ex decimarum datione, et benedictione, et sanctificatione, ex 
ipsius potestatis acceptione, ex ipsarum rerum gwbernatione claris 
oculis intuemur. Nam veritate testante, spiritualis potestas terrenam 
potestatem instituere liabet et judicare, si bona non fuerit, sic de Ec- 
clesia et ecclesiastica potestate verificatur vaticinium Hieremiae: 
' Ecce constitui to hodie super gentes et regna,' " et csctera quaj scqu- 
untur. Ergo si deviat terrena potestas, judicabitur a potestate spiri- 
tuali, sed si deviat spiritualis minor a suo superiori : si vero suprema, 
a solo Deo, non ab homine poterit judicari, testante Apostolo, * Spiri- 
tualis homo judicat omnia, ipse autem a nemine judicatur.'^ Est 
autem hsec auctoritas, etsi data sit homini et exerceatur per hominem, 
non humana, sed potius divina, ore divino Petro data, sibique suis- 
que successoribus in ipso, quem confessus fuit petra firmata, dicente 
Domino ipsi Petro, * Quodcunque ligaveris,'^ etc. Ouicunque igilur 
huic potestati a Deo sic ordinat?e resistif, Dei ordinationi resistit,^ 
nisi duo sicut Manichaeus fmgat esse principia: quod falsum ct 
liaereticum judicamus: quia testante Moyse, non in principiis, sed in 
principio coelum Dcus creavit ct terram.^ Porro subesse Romano 
Pontifici omni humanac crcaturx declaramus, dicimus, definimus ct 
pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. 

Datum Latcrani xiv kal. Dccembris, pontificatus nostri anno 
octavo. 

Corpus Juris C:\XiO\\iz\, Extrava^. Commupi. lib. i. 
Dc Majoritate et Obeiiientia^ cap. i. 

' Rom. xiii. t. "^ Hicr. i. lo. ' i Cor. ii. 15. 

* Malt. xvi. 19, fi Roia. xili. 2. * Cen. i, 1. 



1 74 Appmdices. 

Clementis v. Diploma, a.d. 1306. 

Clemens Episcopus, etc. Ad perpetuara rei meraoriam. 

Meruit carissimi filii nostri Philippi regis Francorum illustris sin- 
cerss devotionis ad nos et Ecclesiam Romanam integritas, et progeni- 
torum suorum prxclara merita meruerunt meruit insuper fida regni- 
colarum pietas, ac devotionis sinceritas, ut tarn regnum quam regem 
favore benevolo prosequamur. Hinc est quod nos dicto regi et regno 
per definitionem sen declarationem bonae memorise Bonifacii PP. 
VIII. praedecessoris nostri, quae incipit Unam sanciam^ nullum vol- 
umus vel intendimus praejudicium generari. Nee quod per illam 
rex, regnum, regnicolae praelibati amplius Ecclesiae sint subjecti quam 
antea existebant. Sed omnia intelligantur in eodem esse statu quo 
erant ante definitionem praefatam, tam quantum ad Ecclesiam quam 
etiam quod regem et regnum superius nominatos. 

Datum Lugduni kalendis Februarii, pontificatus nostri annit 
primo. 

Labbe, Concilia^ sub ann. 1305, tom.xiv. p. 1374, 
ed. Ven. 1731. 



APPENDIX B. 

Extract from the Encyclical Letter of Gregory XVI, ^ Mirari Vos* 
August 15, 1832. 

As we have learned that certain writings spread abroad among the 
people publish doctrines which destroy the loyalty and submission 
due to princes, and kindle everywhere the torch of civil discord, we 
have to take especial care that the nations may not be deceived 
thereby, and led away from the right path. Let all bear in mind, 
according to the words of the Apostle, that *there is no power but 
from God, and those that are ordained of God ; therefore he that re- 
sisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist 
purchase to themselves damnation.* * 

Wherefore both divine and human laws cry out against those who, 
by basely plotting civil discord and sedition, abandon their allegi- 
ance to their princes and unite to drive them from their thrones. 

^ Rorn. xiii, q. 



Appendices. 175 

For this reason, to avoid so base a crime, it is a well-known fact 
that the first Christians, in the midst of persecutions, rendered meri- 
torious service to their Emperors and to the safety of the Empire. 
This they showed by the clearest proofs, not only in fulfilling with 
all loyalty and promptitude all that was commanded them not con- 
trary to their religion, but by persevering therein even to shedding 
their blood in battle for them. 

* Christian soldiers,' says St. Augustine, * served an unbelieving 
Emper9r, but when the cause of Christ was in question, they ac- 
knowledged only Him who is in Heaven. They distinguished be- 
tween the Eternal Lord and a temporal lord, and were nevertheless 
subject to the temporal for the sake of their Eternal Lord.' ^ 

St. Maurice, the invincible martyr, the captain of the Theban Legion, 
had this before his eyes when, as St. Eucherius relates, he gave his 
answer to the Emperor : — * We are your soldiers, O Emperor, but 
nevertheless, we are free to confess, the servants of God. . . . And 
now we are not driven into rebellion, even to save our lives, for here 
we have arms in our hands, and we do not fight, because we have the 
will to die rather than to slay/ 

This loyalty of the first Christians to their princes is the more con- 
spicuous if we consider with TertuUian, that Christians at that time 
* were not wanting in numbers and strength if they had wished for open 
war. We are but of yesterday, and we are found everywhere among 
you, in your cities, islands, strongholds, towns, public places, in your 
camps, your tribes, your companies, in your palaces, your senate, and 
your forum. . . . For what warfare should we not have been able 
and willing, even at great odds, who so readily oifer ourselves to death, 
if our religion did not oblige us rather to die than to slay ? ... If 
we, so large a number as we are, had broken away from you and gone 
to some distant corner of the world, the loss of so many citizens, even 
such as we are, would have put your empire to shame, nay, would have 
punished you by the very loss. Without doubt you would have been 
daunted in your solitude. . . . You would have asked over whom 
you were ruling : more enemies would have been left than citizens : 
but now you have fewer enemies, owing to the number of Clnis- 
tians.'^ 

These luminous examples of immovable loyalty to princes, which 
necessarily followed from the holy precepts of the Christian religion, 

' St. Au?:tr.t. /// Psalm cxxiv. n. 7. 
* 'rcrtiilllai in Aj'olo^. cap. xxxvii. 



1 76 Appendices. 

at once condemn the detestable pride and wickedness of those who, 
boiling with unbridled lust for an inordinate liberty, are wholly en- 
gaged in destroying and tearing to pieces all the rights of princes in 
order to reduce the nations to slavery under pretence of liberty. — See 
Rccueil des Allocutions des Souverains Pontifcs, Paris, Le Cl^re, 1865, 
pp. 165-6. 



APPENDIX C. 

For the accuracy of the following statement I have direct evi- 
dence : 

For several years past the Radical authorities of the Diocese of Basle 
have persecuted the Catholic Church, as they still continue to do. 
Formerly the persecution was carried into effect, parti}?- by violence 
and pardy by underhand means ; but it was always specious and 
very injurious to religion. It was invariably carried on in the name 
of progress, liberty, and the welfare of the people, whom it pretended 
to free from the lyranny of the priesthood and the despotism of 
Rome. 

The Catholic populations were thus oppressed by the so-called 
omnipotence of the State, and, incredible as it would seem under a 
republican form of government, the State, or rather a few individuals 
acting in its name, supported by a non-Catholic majority, and backed 
by the Radical element, have succeeded in monopolising power, and in 
maintaining themselves in it by terrorism and bribery for a length of 
years, assuming to themselves the functions of the Holy See and the 
Episcopate, and so addinj to their temporal rule the spiritual govern- 
ment of souls. Not only have they possessed themselves of the direc- 
tion of all public schools, and of the administration of all pious foun- 
dations, but they have destroyed all the monastic, capitular, and eccle- 
siastical institutions, claimed the right to regulate the parochial system, 
the preaching of the Gospel, catechising, confessions, first commu- 
nions of children, the celebration of public worship, processions, 
burials and benedictions, and even extended their jurisdiction to ma- 
trimonial causes. More than this, by the Federal Constitution, which 
the recent revolutionary laws have just extended to the Catholic can- 
tons, contrary to the v/ill of the populations as expressed by the vote 
of an immense majority, the State has virtually and insidiously sup- 



Appendices. 177 

pressed the Catholic Church by the introduction of that article of the 
Federal Code by which the ecclesiastical jurisdiction is abolished. 

(Art. 58.) 

Finally, in five cantons of the Diocese of Basle, the Catholic popula- 
tions have losi all liberty of worship in a more or less degree. 

Since the Council of the Vatican more especially, the war against 
the Church has been waged with greater acrimony in the Diocese of 
Basle, and since the victories of Prussia, our enemies have acted more 
openly.. The five governments of Soleure, Argovie, Basle-Campagne, 
Berne, and Thurgovie have sent their delegates to an assembly call- 
ing itself a Diocesan Conference, composed not of ecclesiastics, but 
in o-reat part of Protestants, and of lay-Catholics notoriously hostile 
to the Church. Such a body of course possessed no legal authorit}', 
but notwithstanding its patent incapacity, it committed, among many 
other illegal and unjust acts, that of pronouncing a sentence of depri- 
vation against the Bishop of Basle, on the 29th of January, 1S73. The 
principal offence imputed to him was, that of having published the 
definition of Papal Infallibility in his diocese, and of having refused 
to withdraw the publication. Several minor accusations were brought 
against him ; but it may be remarked that the authorities were unable 
to prove that he had violated a single law during the whole course of 
his episcopate. He was therefore deprived of his see solely because 
he had fulfilled the duties of a Catholic bishop, and because he would 
not separate himself from the Unity of the Holy See, by refusing to 
publish the decrees of the Vatican Council. 

Since the above attack on the liberties of the Catholic populations, 
the Hoi)'- See, and the Church, a series of laws favouring schism and 
apostasy have been passed by the five cantonal governments in ques- 
tion. They have forbidden the Bishop of Basle to exercise his epis- 
copal charge throughout the five cantons composing his diocese ; and 
they have also forbidden the 'clergy to maintain any official relations 
with him, so that the faithful suffer grievous injury in their most sacred 
rights, and in their most urgent religious needs, in common with the 
whole Catholic priesthood, which has been punished in all the cantons 
for having protested against these unjust acts. 

But it is the Protestant Canton of Berne which has signalised it- 
self beyond all others by its despotism and its cruelty. It has sus- 
pended all the parish priests of the canton from their pastoral func- 
tions, and has since then deprived them, as well as all their curates, to 
the number of sixt5'-nint?. It next pronounced sentence of cxilo o't 



178 Appendices., 

the whole clerg}^ ninety in number, only excepting five or six aged 
priests, who were, however, forbidden to say mass save in their own 
rooms, or in any way to exercise their sacred ministry. The govern- 
ment then drove all the priests out of their churches and presbyteries, 
and confiscated all their benefices and revenues, so that they are de- 
prived of all means of subsistence. Before the sentence of exile was 
carried out, many of them were moreover punished by fine and im- 
prisonment. The Catholic laity has suffered there, and still has to 
suffer from every kind of injustice : fines, imprisonment, dismissal from 
public employment, are common occurrences, and men, women, nuns, 
and even children have been imprisoned for their faith. 

There are, at the present moment, more than 60,000 Catholics in 
the Canton of Berne, who are deprived, as far as State influence can 
effect it, of all religious help, whether in life or in death, the exiled 
priests of the Bernese Jura being arrested and cast into prison if dis- 
covered within the cantonal limits. 

The immense majority of the people, however, remain firmly at- 
tached to their pastors. In many parishes not a schismatic is to be 
found, and in others, containing a numerous population, the excep- 
tions are v^xy few. In a word, the Catholics of the Bernese Jura main- 
tain their fidelity to the faith of their fathers, and the only partisans 
of the schism are apostates or persons long notoriously hostile to the 
Church. 

But the most revolting feature of the present persecution is that 
the Government of Berne has sought in ever}^ part of Europe foreign 
priests in order to replace the lawfully appointed clergy of the Jura. 
It has succeeded in finding a certain number of suspended or 
apostate priests, who have consented to act as the instruments of State 
persecution. During the fourteen months which have witnessed the 
exile of the sixty-nine faithful parish clergy, twenty-five strangers have 
been brought to replace them. These men are of the worst moral 
antecedents. The government, notwithstanding, has imposed them on 
the parishioners, gives them profuse supplies of money, makes over 
the churches and presbyteries to them, and supports them in every 
way, while the native clergy are despoiled and exiled. 

The Catholics of the Jura being thus deprived of their pastors, meet 
in farms or outhouses for common worship ; and yet even this liberty 
is not always conceded to them. It is only in profound secret they 
can receive the sacraments, or hear mass, and they even bury their 
own dead without the assistance of a priest. It is thus that religious 



Appendices. 1^9 

animosity, making common cause with Radicalism, tyrannises over its 
fellow-citizens, who commit no offence against the public peace, and 
who bear their proportionate share cf the public burdens ! 

By the course it has pursued the Government of Berne has violated 
the treaties and constitutions v/nich protect Catholic liberties within 
the cantons. In order to give a colour of legality to future persecutions, 
it has voted a new Ecclesiastical Constitution, expressly framed 
against the interests of the Catholic Church in Switzerland, and 
v/hich it has imposed, against their will, on the Catholics of Berne by 
a preponderant non-Catholic majority. 

One consolation remains to us, namely, the fidelity of the entire 
body of clergy to the Catholic Church. They have freely chosen to 
lose all rather than betray the faith. 

In order to perpetuate the supply of schismatic or * Old-Catholic ' 
priests, the government has recently established a faculty of theology 
in Berne. It has brought professors from Germany, either Protestants 
or apostate priests, and has induced a small number of students to 
follow the courses, by paying them highly for their attendance. 

In Soleure, too, the Radical authorities carry on the same persecu- 
tion of the Catholics of the cantons. The government has succeeded 
in placing three schismatical priests in as many parishes. It has sup- 
pressed and confiscated the celebrated and ancient abbey of the Bene- 
dictines at Mariastein and the Chapters of Schoennenwerth and of the 
Bishopric of Basle at Soleure. In the other mixed cantons where the 
anti-Catholic Radicals arc in a majority, the Catholics have much to 
suffer. 

The Diocese of Basle includes seven cantons — viz. Soleure, 
Argovic, Thurgovie, Basle-Campagne, Berne, Lucerne, and Zug. The 
two last-named cantons are Catholic, and possess a just government. 
In the other cantons the majority is Protestant. To these must be 
added the city of Basle and the canton of Schaffhausen, both of which 
form part of the same diocese. 

The Diocese of Basle comprises 430,000 Catholics" and 800,000 
Protestants and other denominations. It contains 800 priests, only 
seven of whom have become Old Catholics, The so-called Diocesan 
Conference has pushed its pretensions to the point of prescribing what 
authors are to be used by ecclesiastical students in the scminaiy ! 
The bishop w^as not even free to appoint the superior and his assist- 
ants, but was obliged to obtain the 'Placet' of tlie State for sucli no- 
minations, as v/cll as for his Pastoral Letters. 



PRICE FIFTY CENTS 




Vatican Decrees 



IN THEIR BEARING ON 



CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 



BY 



ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER. 



m 



i 



*- ' New York : 

■\\i\: ( ACHOLIC I'lnii.uw ri().\ sociktv, 

No. 9 W.\kui:n Sikkkt. 



ANNOUNCEMENT FOR 1875. 



THE CATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY 

Has in press the following works : 

The Youiig*L.adie;*' Illustrated Reader. 12mo, cloth. $1 25 

The Life 'of Father Bernard, C.SS.R. Translated 

from the Fr!?nch. 1 vol. , . . . . . . . 1 50 

Liife of St. John the Evang-elist. Translated from the 

French. 1 vol. 13mo, cloth, . . . . . . 2 00 

Be Xot Hasty in Judging. Translated from the French 

by P. S. 16mo, 1 00 

manual of the Blessed Saeranient. . 1 00 



The Vatiean I>eerees and Civil Alleg^ianee. By 

Archbishop Manning, 50 

The "IBistress of Xo vices enlightened upon her Duties. 

Cloth, 1 50 

The Kinji^'s Hig^hiviiy : or, The Catholic Church the Way 
of Salvation, proved from the Scriptures. By Rev. A. F. 
Hewit. 1 vol. 16mo, \ . . 1 50 

A Letter to the Duke of Norfolk on the Oeeasion 
of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation. By John Henry 
^^Tewman, D.D. Paper, '50 

The Office of Holy Week, according to the Roman Mis- 
sal and Breviary, in Latin and English. This is a new, im- 
proved, and enlarged edition, and is printed from large type. 
Cloth, arabesque 75 

Deharhe's Complete Catechism. Translated by Fan- 

der, 75 

The Young Catholic's Illustrated Fifth Reader. 

12mo, cloth, . . . . . . . . . . 1 25 

The Young Catholic's Illustrated Sixth Reader. 

12mo, cloth, 1 50 

The Veil Withdrawn. By Mrs. Craven. 1 vol. 8vo, . 1 50 

The Catholic Publication Society, 

LAWRENCE EEHOE, Gen Agrent. 

9 AVarren Street, jSTe^w Y'ork. 



APvCIIBISHOP MANNING'S WORKS. 



Sermons on Ecclesiastical Subjects, Yol. L, 

'' III, . 

Temporal Power of the Pope, 

Essays on Various Subjects (Edited by Dr. Manning), Yol. I., 

u u .. u u III 
Answer to Gladstone, 



DR. NEWMAN'S WORKS. 



Apologia Pro Yita Sua, . . . 
Essay in aid of a Grammar of Assent,. 

Answer to Gladstone, 

Theological Tracts, 

Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in 
Sermons on Yarious Occasions, 
Difficulties of Anglicans, .... 

An Essay on Miracles, 

The Office and Work of Universities, 

Parochial and Plain Sermons. Complete in 8 vols. 

Sermons on Subjects of the Day, 

Sermons before the University of Oxford, 

Essays, Critical and Historical. 2 vols. , 

The History of the Arians. New Edition, 

Historical Sketches. 3 vols.. 

Lectures on Justification, .... 

Callista 



Church of tlie Fathers, 
Discussions and Arguments, 
Essay on Development, 
Yerses on Yarious Occasions, 
Loss and (Train, . . . . 
Sermons to Mixed Congregations, 
Address 



England, 



Per vol.. 



The Catliolic rublicatioii Society, 

9 WARREN STREET, NEW YORK. 




lie^HthaUc ffarld: 



A 

MONTHLY MAGAZINE 



S^m^S'^^l &i%^i^a^t>'mr^ a^4 ^^i^m^Q^m 



I 



The Catholic World coiitainl'*^riginal articles from the best 
Catholic English writers at home and ^abroad, as well as translations 
from the reviews and magazines of Frahce, Germany, Belgium, Italy, j 
and Spain. Its readers are thus put in possession of the choicest pro- i 
ductions of Euiopean periodical literature in a cheap and convenient | 
form. 

Extract from Letter of Pope Pius IX, \ 

Rome, Dec. 33, 1868 

Rev, L T. Hbckbr: | 

We heartily congratulate you upon the esteem which your periodical, " The ; 
Catholic World," has, through its erudition and perspicuity, acquired even among : 
those who differ from us, et.*,. PIUS IX., Pope. . 

Letter from the Mod lieu, ArcJihisJiop <f Xein Y. >/•/.■. 

New York, February 7, 1865. 
Dear Father Hpckeb: 

I hare read the Prospectus which you have kindly submitted of a new Catholic 
Magazine, to be entitled ''The Catholic World."' which it is proposed pubhshing 
in this city under your supervision ; and I am happy to state that there is nothing 
in its whole scooe and spirit which has not my hearty approval. The want of some 
such periodical is widely and deeply felt, and I cannot doubt that the atholio com- 
munity at large will rnjoice at the prospect of having ilii;s \raut, if not fully, at least 
in great measure supplied. 

With the. privilege which you have of drawing on t'le intellectual wealth of 
Catholic Europe, and the liberal means placed at your disposal, there ought to be i 
no such word as/i///?//c^ in your vocabulai-y. ' 

Hoping that this laudable enterprise will meet with a well-merited s\iccess, and 
under G-oi s blessing become fraitful in all the good which it proposes, i 

I remain, Rev. and Dear Sir, very truly, your friend and servant in Christ ; 

*J< JOHN. Archbishop of New York. | 

f^opi/ of Letter from C ir^UiKtl uarnobv, 

KoMK, September .', 1.^65. 
Hev. Fathkr : i 

I have heard of the publication of 'The Catholic World" with great satis- i 
faction. I anticipate for it a complete success. There are so many periodicals in 
our day occupied in attacking the trutb, that it is a source of pleasure to its friends i 
when the same means are employed in the defence of it. 1 return you my thanks ' 
for the attention paid iu standing me ''The CHthoh':^ SVorld." I pray the Lord to 
preserve you many years. Alfectirnatelv in the Lo^ J, 

ALEXANDER, CARDINAL BARNABO, 

Prefect of the Propaganda. 
Rev. I. T. HECKER, Superior of the Congregation of St. Paul, N. Y. 



THE CATHOLIC WORLD 

Forms a double-column octavo magazine of 141 pages eacli number, 
making two large volunies, or 1738 pages, each year, and is funii.^hed to 
subricribors for $5 a y-'ai\ ii variably iu advance. Single copies .j() cents. 
All remittances and communications on business sliould be addressed to 

THE OATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 

I Lawrence Kehoe, Qen. Agent, 

I P. O. Box 5,396, 9 WARREN STRluET, NEW YORK. 



J. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper pr 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxid 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnolo 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESER> 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 1606 
(724)770:2111 



